Is free speech essential in a democracy? Can it ever be restricted?

In its simplest form, a democracy is the rule of the people. In democratic societies, such as our
own, the public are encouraged to feel a great sense of power over their society - inevitably it is
their rule that, to some extent, controls the direction the country moves in. However, in order for a
democracy to be effective it is necessary that the government do not exercise control over the
public, and their freedom of speech, to the extent that it influences the decisions made on behalf of
the country. In this way, it is clear that free speech is not necessarily essential to a democracy,
however, if it is negatively impacted enough it may result in the overall failure of the democracy.
Consequently, in this essay I will argue such and that free speech may, in certain circumstances, be
restricted although this similarly must be in the interest of democratic rule.

Freedom of speech is classified as a Human Right - all individuals are entitled to openly
communicate their ideas without fear of persecution. Nevertheless, the overt limitation of freedom
of speech can be witnessed both in history and our society today. Whilst in some circumstances,
such limitations negatively the community - such as the censorship of media in China -
governments can also sometimes limit free speech in order to protect society. Although this is far
more infrequent, governments have been witnessed to enforce laws and bans upon freedom of
speech which have positive effects ; for instance, genocide-denying laws which were introduced
following World War Two to protect the legacy of holocaust victims and their families. Typically
the restriction of free speech is seen as negative, an attempt for organisations and the government
to exercise political control over the public, however, as I have proven this is not always the case -
the countries in which genocide-denying laws are enforced (such as France and Germany) are still
fully-functioning democracies regardless of the restraints introduced.

Nevertheless, introducing such a precedent may be potentially dangerous, to both the rule of law
and international politics. Whilst countries may begin to restrict freedom of speech with perfectly
valid reasons, there is the potential for powerful countries to use such actions as an excuse to
introduce laws which restrict free speech without reason and harm democratic rule. Moving back
to my previous example of censorship in China; it can prove to be extremely difficult to control
powerful countries and once they begin to restrict the rule of law within their country foreign
powers can do very little to intervene immediately without harming international relations. China
is currently ranked lowest in terms of freedom of speech internationally by Freedom House but
organisations such as the UN are at a loss as to how to handle the situation without potentially
sparking tensions. Following this, it is more logical to restrain from restricting free speech within
society as whilst it is not essential to a democracy, restricting it may have a myriad of negative
consequences.
In addition, in order for a democracy to be fair all participants have the right to be fully informed;
by limiting freedom of speech there is the potential for individuals to be manipulated into adhering
to one point of view as they are not fully aware of their other options. Whilst political extremism
or non-traditional parties are not typically favoured within politics, the public have the right to be
informed about their existence and further to decide for themselves to which viewpoint they wish
to adhere. Naturally, this must also be prevented from moving to the other extreme, similar to the
Cambridge Analytica scandal, where individuals are overwhelmed with political propaganda
which attempts to manipulate them into a certain point of view. As originally stated, a democracy
is the rule of the people; therefore, whilst free speech may be restricted (in the interest of the
public and political correctness to an extent) it is more appropriate of a government to restrain
from such limitations unless inherently necessary. At the heart of democracy lies a willingness for
the public to hold the power; governments may restrict free speech in favour of political, and
historical, correctness however, inevitably, with regards to politics the public must be left to make
their own decisions removed from outside influences.