-
varundaga05
- Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
- Posts: 64
- Joined: Fri Jan 29, 2010 3:48 am
- Thanked: 1 times
"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."
The argument that for society to thrive, all limits on freedom of expression should be eliminated, is not completely sound. There are some crucial assumptions which are ignored in the statement.
One assumption that the statement makes is that without new ideas, any society will stagnate. There are number of reasons this might not be true. It does not clearly mention whether the ideas are good or bad to the society. Some new ideas may be detrimental to the society. For example the use of weapons of mass destruction. Though it is a new idea it has the potential to completely destory the human civilization. So for this assumption to hold good it must be mentioned that the ideas should be constructive to the development of the society.
Second, the argument assumes that the there should not be any limits on the freedom of expression. Now this assumptions suffers from various flaws. As a matter of fact there should be some limit to the freedom of expression otherwise it can be destructive to the society. If under the name of freedom of expression anti social elements spread wrong ideas and destructive messages then this will not help society but will affect the society. So the argument should clearly what freedom of expression will help the society and what can cause negative effect.
Thus the argument is not completely sound. If the above points like good ideas and proper freedom of speech was taken into the consideration then the argument might have been strengthen.
The argument that for society to thrive, all limits on freedom of expression should be eliminated, is not completely sound. There are some crucial assumptions which are ignored in the statement.
One assumption that the statement makes is that without new ideas, any society will stagnate. There are number of reasons this might not be true. It does not clearly mention whether the ideas are good or bad to the society. Some new ideas may be detrimental to the society. For example the use of weapons of mass destruction. Though it is a new idea it has the potential to completely destory the human civilization. So for this assumption to hold good it must be mentioned that the ideas should be constructive to the development of the society.
Second, the argument assumes that the there should not be any limits on the freedom of expression. Now this assumptions suffers from various flaws. As a matter of fact there should be some limit to the freedom of expression otherwise it can be destructive to the society. If under the name of freedom of expression anti social elements spread wrong ideas and destructive messages then this will not help society but will affect the society. So the argument should clearly what freedom of expression will help the society and what can cause negative effect.
Thus the argument is not completely sound. If the above points like good ideas and proper freedom of speech was taken into the consideration then the argument might have been strengthen.
