theoretically, freedom of speech has its plus points: rational inquiry. it allows people to set their own platforms to resolve disagreements through debates. however, being creatures with emotions and feelings, it is inevitable that our judgement is clouded by negative feelings, undermining our ability to think and argue rationally. alas, the result is the social unrest as stated in the fourth paragraph of reading three. therefore, in order to prevent unrest among society and uphold a peaceful climate, restrictions should be imposed on freedom of speech.
in reading four, it states that while censorship is not enforced, people have their own freedom of expression. people should enjoy this priviledge and make informed choices of their actions. in their choices, they do what they want to, and even protest when the need arises. however, are these people sure that by protesting, they are not inflicting harm onto the minority who do not agree with them? even by offending someone unknowingly, harm is inflicted, not physically, but mentally and emotionally. this is unfair, for people to suffer, while the others enjoy their own freedom of expression.
in conclusion, while we do agree with the need for freedom of expression, we must also understand that our rights cease once it infringes into other people's life. as in reading three, "free speech or free expression is a noble value, certainly. but freedom must come with a responsibility."
