The argument concludes that Freedom of air is the solely basis for the survival and growth of a society. It also states that granting immunity of expression is the alone way to introduce virgin ideas which, in the long run, would lam to mixer growth.
The stated argument has three underlying assumptions. First, affectionate growth would non be possible without new ideas. However, new ideas or Innovation is not the only vehicle which drives brotherly growth. Social growth also depends on the economic aspects corresponding the access to basic facilities. Moreover, when the basic needs of the people basinnot be fulfilled, even if they come up with new ideas, they would not be in a position to experiment with and implement them as they have to a greater extent compelling needs to take boot of.
Another assumption that seems a bit out of place is that only freedom of expression would lead to generation of new ideas. For the moment, lets consume that the society is economically st subject, and is given complete freedom of expression so that they can come up with more and more new ideas. However, would this freedom guarantee lots of new ideas? What if the common level of education among the people is very low. Would they be able to generate new ideas which would lead to social upliftment?
I dont say that is not possible at all. However lets look at the revolutions of the past. We can get dozens of examples from the Indian, Russian, French revolutions that the change in the social order was triggered because of the new ideas that the revolution leaders came up with. That, inspite of the censoring on the freedom of speech and expression.
Thirdly, it is argued that removing all limits on freedom of expression would lead to social growth. This,
If you want to get a full essay, order it on our website: Ordercustompaper.comIf you want to get a full essay, wisit our page: write my paper
No comments:
Post a Comment