Limiting Freedom Of Speech In 1984 By George Orwell

The freedom of speech is a natural right for all human beings, so under no circumstances should it be takin or even limited by the government. Limiting freedom of speech gives a government power over the ideas of its citizens. Without the ability to speak his or her idea, one has no way of overthrowing a corrupt rule or changing unjust laws, hence why a government would want to limit the freedom of speech. Governments have been found to reduce the freedom of speech in different ways, such as limiting the words people can use or creating laws against expressing certain ideas. The book 1984 demonstrated a tyrannical government that restricted the speech for the goal of having absolute power. In the article “We’re Living 1984 Today”, the author

Stripping the language of words constantly caused for certain expressions to be impossible to say. Without words to describe a person’s ideas, those ideas will not be spread, or in some cases even be cosidered. Even though the Party controls what words the people could use, it went further by watching the citizens through telescreens. Winston, the main character of this story, explains, “You had to live – did live, from habit – in the assumption that every sound you made was overheard, and, except in darkness, every movement scrutinized” (Orwell 6-7). Living with the fear that anything said or done could be seen or heard, causes most people to keep any ideas against the government locked away in the back of their mind. Therefore, the people of Oceania have no freedom of speech, speaking something against the Party’s notions gets

For example, it could stop bullying and verbal harassment. In one case, at the University of Oklahoma, members of a fraternity had stated they would rather lynch a black student then let him join their frat. Two members, in particular, started a racist, appalling chant; they were soon expelled. Although this seems to be the correct punishment for such an awful act, the fraternity members were just using their freedom of speech to voice their opinions. The students sued the school with the argument of freedom of speech. An article about the incident wrote, “The university is a public institution, they say, and punishing students for what they said – no matter how vile – violates the First Amendments commitment to ‘uninhibited, robust, and wide-open discourse’” (Greenfield 1). The action of the students is inexcusable behavior, so why does are First Amendment protect them for voicing their opinions? Freedom of speech is a natural right for all humans but when some abuse this freedom they might not deserve it. Then again, giving a government the power to control the publics freedom of speech, will eventually give it absolute power. So, it would be worth it to let bullies say harsh things, because once a government can control speech, no one can say anything that does not coincide with the authorities