TOPIC: MANY PEOPLE SAY THAT ALL NETIZENS SHOULD BE GIVEN COMPLETE FREEDOM TO EXPRESS THEIR PERSONAL OPINIONS AND CONCERNS ABOUT EVERY CURRENT PROBLEM ON SOCIAL MEDIA, WHILE OTHERS SAT THAT THIS MAY WORSEN THE SITUATION IN REALITY. DISCUSS BOTH VIEWS AND GIVE YOUR OWN OPINION.
Modern society presents numerous unseen social dilemmas, one of which concerns freedom of speech on the Internet. While many insist upon its essentiality to the digital sphere, others contend that such unrestrained liberty of expression ultimately causes more harm than good. This essay will explore both perspectives before arriving at a reasoned judgement.
On the one hand, as social media functions as a digital extension of the contemporary public sphere, the capacity to voice one's opinions freely is intrinsic to its very purpose. Freedom of speech facilitates open dialogue, stimulates creativity, and enables the circulation of diverse perspectives across cultures. Proponents argue that limiting this freedom risks undermining democratic values, as online platforms often serve as a vital outlet for marginalized groups who would otherwise remain voiceless. Moreover, unrestricted expression fosters global awareness, critical debate, and provides an essential check on the actions of those in authority.
On the other hand, opponents maintain that absolute freedom of speech in online spaces produces serious repercussions. They propose that social media is not only a forum for constructive discussion but also a conduit for hate speech, misinformation, and harassment. Harmful content can proliferate with alarming speed, damaging reputations, inciting violence, and destabilising communities. Furthermore, the anonymity offered by digital platforms often facilitates reckless and irresponsible behaviour, allowing individuals to disseminate inflammatory or deceptive information without consequence. In this light, some degree of regulation appears necessary to safeguard users and preserve social cohesion.
In conclusion, the tension between liberty and responsibility lies at the heart of the debate over online freedom of expression. While unfiltered speech undoubtedly nurtures democracy and innovation, it also exposes society to profound risks that cannot be overlooked. In my considered view, the most sustainable approach is neither absolute freedom nor heavy-handed censorship, but a carefully calibrated system of regulation - one that protects individual expression while simultaneously preventing its deleterious misuse.
This essay was a collaborative effort of my teacher (or mentor) and me, written over the course of 45 minutes. Even though we weren't able to include examples, I still think we did a decent job at tackling this essay. Please give me your most honest evaluation of our work, and any criticisms or ideas for improvement are much appreciated. Thank you. I also properly formatted the essay thanks to your previous advice.
Modern society presents numerous unseen social dilemmas, one of which concerns freedom of speech on the Internet. While many insist upon its essentiality to the digital sphere, others contend that such unrestrained liberty of expression ultimately causes more harm than good. This essay will explore both perspectives before arriving at a reasoned judgement.
On the one hand, as social media functions as a digital extension of the contemporary public sphere, the capacity to voice one's opinions freely is intrinsic to its very purpose. Freedom of speech facilitates open dialogue, stimulates creativity, and enables the circulation of diverse perspectives across cultures. Proponents argue that limiting this freedom risks undermining democratic values, as online platforms often serve as a vital outlet for marginalized groups who would otherwise remain voiceless. Moreover, unrestricted expression fosters global awareness, critical debate, and provides an essential check on the actions of those in authority.
On the other hand, opponents maintain that absolute freedom of speech in online spaces produces serious repercussions. They propose that social media is not only a forum for constructive discussion but also a conduit for hate speech, misinformation, and harassment. Harmful content can proliferate with alarming speed, damaging reputations, inciting violence, and destabilising communities. Furthermore, the anonymity offered by digital platforms often facilitates reckless and irresponsible behaviour, allowing individuals to disseminate inflammatory or deceptive information without consequence. In this light, some degree of regulation appears necessary to safeguard users and preserve social cohesion.
In conclusion, the tension between liberty and responsibility lies at the heart of the debate over online freedom of expression. While unfiltered speech undoubtedly nurtures democracy and innovation, it also exposes society to profound risks that cannot be overlooked. In my considered view, the most sustainable approach is neither absolute freedom nor heavy-handed censorship, but a carefully calibrated system of regulation - one that protects individual expression while simultaneously preventing its deleterious misuse.
This essay was a collaborative effort of my teacher (or mentor) and me, written over the course of 45 minutes. Even though we weren't able to include examples, I still think we did a decent job at tackling this essay. Please give me your most honest evaluation of our work, and any criticisms or ideas for improvement are much appreciated. Thank you. I also properly formatted the essay thanks to your previous advice.
