First task : The outline

I- Introduction

-The hook: Josie Timms, an English journalist, states that: “Freedom of speech is one of the
most precious and important human rights. A free society depends on the free exchange of
ideas”.

- Background information: Perspectives vary immensely, and ideas disagree, but nevertheless
freedom of speech stands absolute.

-Thesis statement: Must the right of expression be absolute? Or should it be bound to

limitations?

II- Body

 Paragraph 1: (Pro-arguments)
Argument1: “Freedom of speech advances the free trade of thoughts.”
Argument2: “The ability to speak freely is crucial to the success of a good political
community.”
Argument3: “The right of free expression eliminates constrained actions.”

 Paragraph 2: (Counter-arguments +refutation)

Counter arg1: “Some people are easily provoked when someone uses their freedom of
speech”
Refutation: “That is a matter of one’s emotional intelligence and strength of opinion”
Counter arg2: “The charges of conspiracy are a direct result of excessive freedom of
speech”
Refutation: “The way in which individuals use their right of free speech is irrelevant to
the importance of claiming that right to be valid in the first place”

III. Conclusion:

“Freedom of speech is an important human right that presents the building block of every
other human right we have. If we lose this important freedom, we will lose much more than
just freedom of speech. We will lose our humanity”
 Task 2: The essay:
Josie Timms, an English journalist, states that: “Freedom of speech is one of the most
precious and important human rights. A free society depends on the free exchange of ideas”.
Evidently, the freedom of learning and expression has been a universal issue over the long
course of history. And still, in our digital era, the debate over whether freedom of speech is
irrevocable is known for its questionable relevance to democracy, hate acts, and violence.
Must the right of expression be absolute? Or should it be bound to limitations? Perspectives
vary immensely, and ideas disagree, but nevertheless freedom of speech stands absolute, and
that’s because of three reasons.

Firstly, freedom of speech advances the free trade of thoughts. Ideally, permitting people to
voice various and even dubious thoughts and feelings prompts alluring and verified
sociopolitical arrangements, from which the public eye benefits. A great example of this is
“the marketplace of ideas”, a notion to which freedom of speech strongly contributes and one
that was popularized by the famous political economist John Stuart Mill. This concept holds
that the truth will emerge from the competition of ideas in free, transparent public discourse.
Secondly, the ability to speak freely is crucial to the success of a good political community,
as peaceful and swift changes are most likely to occur in democratic countries, or generally
ones that acknowledge freedom of speech as a basic human right. As a matter of fact, the
continued stability of a country is strongly influenced by its political activities, and besides a
free press can uncover political defilement, follow up on crusade guarantees, and report on
arrangement execution, exposing immoral or unlawful political activities. As an illustration,
in the United States Constitution, the First Amendment provides citizens with the right to free
speech, which was the first step towards a good-governed nation.
Thirdly and finally, the right of free expression eliminates constrained actions. Freedom of
speech allows us to remain in charge of what we state and how those words are
communicated to the rest of society. And even if the government endeavors to modify your
words furthering their potential benefit, you will consistently have the chance to address the
circumstance. At the point, no legislature can force your activities or words so that you are
required to speak a particular message. This will make it hard for leaders like Kim Jong-un to
be in power, and people won’t have to walk around afraid of the authorities.
Although, many opponents disagree saying that some people are easily provoked when
someone uses their freedom of speech. Of course, that statement might be true, but that is a
matter of one’s emotional intelligence and strength of opinion. Also, these opposing
perspectives insist that the charges of conspiracy are a direct result of excessive freedom of
speech. This point has some merit, but the way in which individuals use their right of free
speech is irrelevant to the importance of claiming that right to be valid in the first place.

To sum up, freedom of speech is an important human right that presents the building block of
every other human right we have. If we lose this important freedom, we will lose much more
than just freedom of speech. We will lose our humanity.
ABOUNACER Salma