AWA – Argument #3
Without new ideas, any society will stagnate. New ideas can only be introduced in a society that permits freedom of expression. Therefore, if a society is to thrive, all limits on freedom of expression should be eliminated.
The argument that eliminating all limits on freedom of expression will lead to new ideas being borne leading to a thriving society is not entirely based on logical facts. There are many holes in this argument that needs patching up before it can be truly substantiated.
Firstly, providing complete freedom can have a reverse effect on the development of the society. It is wrong to assume that all ideas are good ideas. There are many ideas which are not good and they are based on very narrow views and ideologies. Radical and extreme groups will go to all extents to propagate these ideas. For e.g. we see such ideas being propagated by the Islamic fundamentalists in countries like Iran and Iraq. These ideas of freedom has not only led to 1000s of innocent people being killed but has also reduced their once beautiful country to rubbles.
Secondly, complete freedom is too extreme a theory to be put into practice. There has to be a governing body to decide on what is right and what is wrong. Not only that, there has to be certain checks and balances in place to ensure that wrong messages do not fall into the hands of immature people. Such people can be easily misled and can cause a lot of anxiety for their family members and community around them. Certain popular artists while expressing their thoughts, exercising their freedom of expression, have managed to influence teens to such an extent that they have turned murderers before they could turn 20.
Lastly, we all know that for a society to thrive, it is important to have cooperation among the elements that make the society. There has to be a feeling of brotherhood and each individual member has to contribute towards the growth and well-being of the society. The argument mentioned above fails to answer how eliminating limits on freedom of expression lead to such a productive environment. If an environment of sharing and caring is not created, then the argument does not hold true at all.
Thus, the argument is not entirely convincing. To strengthen in further, the argument should talk about what kind of ideas will enable the society to thrive, how can we distinguish and filter bad ideas from good and how can we take care of radical elements who may take unnecessary advantage of this freedom thus causing a reverse effect on the growth of the society. Unless these questions are answered, the argument in its present form fails to convey the message convincingly.
