France's interpretation regarding this matter has given rise to numerous debates among scholars and citizens.
On one hand, people living in democracies should be allowed to speak their minds freely and share how they feel about the society they live in. On the other, some discourse - hate speech etc. - can potentially have dramatic consequences. What do you think ?
This paradox is a the center of our societies: "should we emprison for the sake of freedom ?" I would say yes. Freedom is not a mere concept floating in the world of ideas, it is a fragile treasure that needs to be taken care of. Therefore, people promoting violence, hatered, etc. should not be allowed to spread their ideas as they harm the system from the inside.
I think that any political framework is organic -it lives and it can die. Hate speeches etc. are like a tumor: the organism fights against itself. Using free speech to promote something that would go against is counterproductive.
In a way, freedom of expression is like honking, you have the right to do it, but considerally.
Every right come with the duty to preserve and make good use of that right. You could answer back by saying that the concept of good is relative, but I am not a relativist and I believe in an universal common sense.
It's true that the platform is central as it allows people to spread they idea. But should social media such as Twitter be allowing to censor Trump. Do they diffuse or edit ? It's not the same and they're quite ambiguous in this regard.
But the broader question is, would you let people say anything, even violent stuff? Are we all able to dicern what's true from what's false and innacurate - if yes, then let's not censor; if no, let's censor but in that case, how can we let those same people - unable to dicern - decide and vote for a nation's future - how can we trust democracy ?
I think the problem is not if we should guarantee freedom of speech. The problem is where opinions are expressed. Facebook, insta, etc., are meant to focus interest groups around the same ideas to enhance the app's use. That sort of service does aggravate sectorial opinions, and people aren't faced with any contradictory comments. They live in a bubble and do not think twice; do not debate. They are only met with groups that are even more extreme than themself.
We should encourage change to allow structural debate without undermining people's opinions.
Allow ideas to be express without unleashing hell on them. It only makes them more robust in sectorial groups and prevents the rise of extremist views by opening their feed of information. We are what we read.