"Without new ideas, any society will stagnate. New ideas can only be introduced in a society that permits freedom of expression. Therefore, if a society is to thrive, all limits on freedom of expression should be eliminated."


I agree that without new ideas, society will stagnate to a certain degree. Innovation and new ideas bring excitement and fresh outlook. However to say that if a society is to thrive, all limits on freedom of expression should be eliminated is baseless and unsound.

First of all, the author needs to clarify what is meant by freedom of expression. Does nudity and sexual activities in public consider a freedom of expression? If so, then, should they be permitted? how about what effects will it have on children. How about rape, and murder? some may argue that those are freedom of expression in that the rapist and murderer have a drive to express their internal turmoil by bringing on pain and suffering to others. Should those heinousness be permitted? More importantly, how will permitting those atrocities help introduce new ideas?


To say that new ideas can "only" be introduced in a society that permits freedom of expression needs substantial evidence as well. First of all, what is constitutes a new idea in the author's mind? Perhaps, new inventions and new technology? surly those are sparked by persons' ideas, and they are not only permitted in all societys-all of which have limits on freedom of expression, but thrives the societies forward and improves standards of living.

Or perhaps the author is refering to books as the "new ideas". But new books are a variety of subjects are published everyday in all societies. The freedom of expression need not be eliminated for those books to be published and read by people in the society.

So just exactly what type of ideas can only be introduced in a society that permits freedom of expression? and how will those ideas help a society to thrive?

To summarize, the introdution of books and prevalence of new technology have shown that new ideas can be introduced to societys with freedom of expression, therefore, contradicts the argument. In order to substantiate the author's point, he or she needs to disprove all possibilities of introducing new ideas to societies with freedom of expression, which is almost an impossible task.
Furthurmore, the author needs to have a criteria of what constitutes new ideas and what constitutes freedom of expression. The argument, as it stands, is extremely weak and ambiguous.