LNAT Sample Essay - Is freedom of speech essential to a democracy? Can it ever be restricted?

Free speech is the freedom of a person to express their opinion, without a fear of prosecution for their statements. This is of utmost importance in the criticism of a government. Some may argue that unregulated freedom of speech may be detrimental for a country, since it promotes feelings of anti-nationalism and a lack of patriotism if the speech is a critical representation of the government. However this essay will reflect on and conclude with the argument that criticism of a government through free speech is not a criteria to restrict it, since it ultimately promotes transparency, and a chance for citizens to voice the manner in which they would like to be governed; an essential feature of a democracy.

Freedom of speech offers a platform for open discourse regarding criticism of the government, which enables improvement and progress for a government. If not for feedback, how can one ensure the proper functioning of a democracy, which is meant to function for the people of a country? Protests against policies, opinion articles and letters written to the government all incorporate valid mediums through which the citizens could voice their concerns and rally for actionable change in a governmental policy. For example, in India, the decriminalization of homosexuality by the repeal of section 377, was indirectly a result of open communication by the members of the LGBT community to argue that there could not be discrimination against them, on the basis of the nature of their relationships. Thus, this reflects how approaching the government, through the provision of free speech is a viable method to trigger a shift in social structures, and corroborate that a government serves the people, rather than their own self-interests, the latter being a feature of a totalitarian government. Restricting free speech in such cases would most certainly lead to the downfall of a democratic system that is instated to ensure that the needs of the people are met.

However, some factions may argue that unrestricted free speech in a democracy could lead to people misusing the power that is conferred onto them. In the USA, Edward Snowden is hailed as a criminal for his engagement in whistleblowing activities that made public the secrets of the state, which violated the clause of non-disclosure as a governmental employee. Unlimited access to free speech, may be detrimental to a democracy in such cases where the workings of a government are being exposed to the rest of the world. In such cases, unless the free speech is restricted, overt governmental criticism could lead to anti-nationalist tendencies and a lack of a national identity, promoting disharmony between the government and the people.

A caveat to this, nevertheless, is the fact that even in such cases where freedom of speech is 'violated', it is exposing a weakness in the government, which could be a tell-tale sign that a people's elected representatives are not working in their favour. Additionally, the government curtailing and restricting free speech sets an example for the citizens, who themselves could begin to restrict another's opinion, in the view that it has offended them in some way. Edward Snowden's exposure of the illegal activities that were being conducted in the government such as wiretapping and the violation of privacy were essential to promoting transparency in the democracy. How could this be considered a detriment, if free speech is bringing the wrong in a government to light? Ideally, a democracy should not fear free speech unless they have something to fabricate from the people they serve. In terms of being exemplary, the recent assassination attempt towards Salman Rushdie for expressing certain opinions regarding his own Islamic identity, is a testament to the fact that the people have begun to believe they have the right to take matters into their own hands if they find something offensive; something that is subjective and is likely to wreak havoc in a country.

Restricting Free Speech is a very controversial feat to carry through, and the point about it promoting anti-national tendencies is the very reason it is required--to help citizens voice their concerns and become aware of facts that a seemingly democratic government might not be relaying to them. Free speech is always essential to a democracy, and restricting it is unlikely to assist the proper functioning of a democratic society.

Word Count: 719

This sample LNAT essay is an original piece written by our lead writer, Anoushka Ichpanani

#LNAT #Essay #UCAS