Despite that free speech has allowed xenophobic rhetoric to abound in democracies, I maintain a firm belief in the concept of free speech. Social media platforms, of course, have taken heat for giving hate-groups such as the Nazis and the Ku Klux Klan a "microphone", or a method to reach out their racist rhetoric across the globe. But it is not technically a free speech issue because free speech is a government-provided right, whereas social media is maintained by corporations, which can set their own rules about speech. But even without corporations, free speech has the notions that any speech is free speech. Brian Leiter, a political philosopher, argued in a paper titled "The Case Against Free Speech" that free speech is not an inherently good thing because we are all conditioned to accept social norms and push back what is considered dangerous, whether it's xenophobia or conspiracies. However, in a democracy, it is perfectly natural that people are permitted to believe whatever they want to believe, however disgraceful it is. When a society is permitted to speak their minds, then that can only be facilitated by a marketplace that distributes ideas freely. No book is to be banned, and every ideology is to be distributed fairly. Politics, after all, is inherently about the sharing of ideas, which is a distribution of speech amongst politicians. And agreement or disagreement can be difficult to facilitate in a non-democratic society. Brian Leiter argues, or course, that politics is a matter of facts as opposed to values, but it is in humanity's nature to treat facts as a reference point to establish their values. Most of us have heard the saying "facts don't care about your feelings", but we do treat facts to foster our feelings. Facts should never be disputed, of course, because facts are facts. Conspiracies pushing against facts should be pushed back because they promote disorder for society. But what would be the alternative than if the US government passed bills suppressing misinformation. Apart from the blowback from political pundits that a move would be seen as the United States becoming an autocratic state akin to the Soviet Union, it would be a really complicated process since misinformation is spread via social media. And social media, as I stated before, is owned by corporations and do not fall under the free speech category. Therefore, a bill meant to suppress misinformation would be meaningless because it has little jurisdiction. Free speech ultimately comes down to how it is regulated. Sure, some political ideologies should be pushed back, and facts, especially facts about climate change and vaccines, should not be disputed. Free speech is not overrated because it has allowed political ideologies to gain momentum that presents a danger to society's well-being. It is not overrated because it needs to be handled through productive conversations about political issues. We do not need to rethink free speech as a concept. We need to rethink its execution. CITATIONS: Illing, Sean. “Free Speech: Is It Actually a Good Thing?” Vox, 10 Mar. 2019, www.vox.com/2019/3/4/18197209/free-speech-philosophy-politics-brian-leiter. Leiter, Brian. “The Case Against Free Speech.” SSRN Electronic Journal, 2014. Crossref, doi:10.2139/ssrn.2450866.

**TL;DR – While freedom of speech is important for encouraging discourse, preventing suppression and preserving individual freedoms, it should be noted that there have been instances where free speech does in fact impinge on other more basic freedoms.** Freedom of speech is important to individuals, institutions, governments and societies as a whole. However, what's also important is that it not be exploited or abused. And for this to be remembered, we need to understand that while one does have a right to speak out, it still needs to be done in a respectful and responsible manner in keeping with the law, of course. The website [connectusfund.org]( https://connectusfund.org/17-freedom-of-speech-pros-and-cons), lets us know that freedom of speech has been around since the time of the Greeks. What’s more, while many countries have adopted their own rules and regulations concerning freedom of speech, there have been limitations that have been put into place so that people don't just indiscriminately say and do what they want. For instance, in the United States freedom of speech is guaranteed but specific limits have been placed on it – dictating what people can and cannot say legally. Which is as it should be, otherwise people would just end up exploiting and abusing this right to freedom of speech. Some specific examples of how freedom of speech positively affect individuals, society, institutions and governments as whole are: freedom of speech protects each of us from the influence of special interests, freedom of speech eliminates compelled actions, freedom of speech promotes the free exchange of ideas, freedom of speech can expose immoral or unlawful activities, freedom of speech prevents the requirement to behave specific ways, freedom of speech advances knowledge for a society, freedom of speech allows for peaceful changes in society, Freedom of speech gives us an opportunity to challenge hate, and freedom of speech creates resiliency. And some specific examples of how freedom of speech negatively affect individuals, society, institutions and governments as whole are: freedom of speech does not mean the freedom to have “all” speech, freedom of speech can spread false information, freedom of speech can incite violence against other people, freedom of speech creates a paradox, freedom of speech can create a mob mentality, freedom of speech can cause people to endure verbal abuse, freedom of speech will eventually polarize society and freedom of speech reduces the desire to compromise. So based on this evidence, it’s quite obvious that while it’s important for us – as individuals, institutions, societies and governments to have freedom of speech, it’s equally as important for us to treat this right responsibly. And if this means having limits in place – to maintain a level of accountability and justice then so be it.

**tl;dr -- Everyone has the right to free speech. But just because you can say something, doesn't mean you should.** The way I see it, freedom of speech is an inalienable right -- of that there is no doubt. But one must also use common sense and exercise this right wisely. For example, going around spouting hate speech in public might be your "right," but if you say the wrong thing, it could also likely get you lynched... and it would be no one's fault but your own. Don't poke the bear, as they say. Maybe it's an overreaction for the bear to eat you. But you knew that the bear has teeth, and you should have had more sense than to mess with the bear to begin with. And as far as I'm concerned, that bear has every right to see you as a threat and take action. You go into its cave, disrupt its peace, and slap it in the face with your self-righteous words of hatred and intolerance. Most people will agree that if you get eaten, you only brought it upon yourself. Some might even say you deserve it. This lesson even applies to those of us who *don't* go around spouting hate speech. It's a matter of self-preservation. For example, I would never insult a person who has a gun to my head. You can *kinda* expect that I'd end up at the bottom of the ocean if I did. It would *kinda* be my own stupid fault. Maybe it's true that no one should have to be afraid to speak their mind -- but the sad truth is, that's not reality. The world is imperfect, unfair, and even cruel -- and honey, I don't know about you, but I'd much rather *survive* than tell the guy with a gun to go to hell.

**Freedom of speech is not overrated because without this freedom ideas cannot spread and be questioned, and society can become very polarised** When freedom of speech is reduced people can be afraid to question why they believe or act a certain way, and lead to polarised societies that cannot mix with other groups of people. I think this can lead to people not wanting to look at things from another point of view, because they are afraid to say anything beyond what they are permitted. This can lead to idea development becoming stalled and mingling between different groups of people becoming difficult.

**TL;DR: Freedom of speech may seem chaotic, but its benefits far outweighs the costs.** Freedom of speech serves as a fundamental tool for other civil and political rights. It allows for social change facilitated by the exchange and amplification of different ideas. Due to its mostly unrestricted nature, freedom of speech does come with its drawbacks sometimes. Freedom of speech often allows hateful and false information. It has also become a right-wing talking point on many topics, such as race and sexuality. It often seems frustrating to see many use their freedom of speech in irresponsible ways. However, I would like to invite critics of freedom of speech to imagine the alternative. Would the civil rights movement have been possible with the robust freedom of speech in the United States? Would grass-roots organizing and impartial news media have been possible without freedom of speech? The obvious answer is no. In these cases, many vulnerable groups would probably have been worse off than they are today. Every society has its faults and wrongs. Freedom of speech cannot fix them alone, but it provides for such a possibility. Freedom of speech allows for hateful speech. However, without the freedom of speech, the hate would likely not remain just speech.

Freedom of speech is the most fundamental aspect of a free society.