In this digital era, it has become easier to express our opinions on various social media platforms, ranging from simple matters to more important ones. This creates a serious debate on where the line should be drawn to filter the substance. I strongly agree that freedom of speech is more beneficial in this case.
On the one hand, censorship might be more preferable for governments and company chairmen since they do not want their reputations to be ruined. Governments usually believe in censorship because they do not want to deal with the public’s criticism or outrage using inappropriate words online. The same goes for the board members of companies since they refuse to deal with the criticisms of their consumers or clients about their products or services online. For example, the Indonesian government decided to create a new policy called “UU ITE” or laws about the internet and technology in which one of the articles discusses censorship. The irony is that this policy was published after someone expressed their opinions about the bad quality of the current regime online.
On the other hand, freedom of speech gives us the opportunity to state our opinions about a particular issue. Freedom of speech is essential, especially in democratic countries, to maintain a check and balance system. If freedom of speech were not allowed, there would not be honest feedback from the people about new rules or new products or services in the market. For instance, the company Nokia went bankrupt because it was incapable of adapting to a new type of phone that was clearly being liked more by people. They probably did not listen to what their consumers had to say about it.
In conclusion, freedom of speech should not be prohibited since it allows people to give honest feedback using raw, unfiltered words that are not censored to governments, companies, or individuals to better improve their performance.