speech on importance of democracy

Donate to liberties

Democracy & justice, why is freedom of speech important in a democracy: 5 reasons, why is freedom of speech important why is it a core principle in a democracy how is it being threatened how do we protect it, by eleanor brooks.

Updated on 21.05.2024 by Una Glatz

Knowledge is power. Your contribution counts.

What is freedom of speech?

Freedom of speech is one of the core pillars upholding the democratic process and protecting it is essential if we want to live in a society that is fair and equal for everyone. Failing to do so weakens democracy.

Every time you share a news story on your social media channel, attend a protest, or write to your local politician about an issue you care about, this is free speech in action. Not just any speech is considered free speech. For example, having an argument around the dinner table about whether or not to eat your vegetables is not considered free speech.

We all deserve to have our say

But it is becoming harder to speak up about the issues we care about. Support Liberties standing up for our right to free speech.

Free speech gives us our voice

Free speech exists when citizens can express their opinion – including views that are critical towards the government - without fearing negative consequences, such as being put into prison or receiving threats of violence.

In 2000 freedom of expression was enshrined as a fundamental right in Article 11 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union:

• Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers.
• The freedom and pluralism of the media shall be respected.

However, the definition of free speech does not protect every kind of speech. Like all fundamental rights the right to freedom of expression is not absolute, meaning it can be subject to limitations provided they have a legal basis. The limitations must meet two conditions: 1) they are proportional - the limitations are no stronger than needed to achieve their aim 2) they are necessary and genuinely fulfill objectives in the interest of the general public or are needed to protect the rights and freedoms of others.

Therefore, someone who engages in criminalised forms of speech such as hate speech, terrorist content or child pornography cannot defend themselves by relying on their right to freedom of expression.

Why is freedom of speech important in a democracy? Why is it a core principle?

Democracy’s goal is to have a plural and tolerant society. For this to happen successfully, citizens should be able to speak freely and openly about how they would like to be governed and criticize those who are in power.

This exchange of ideas and opinions isn’t just a once off on election day, rather it is an on-going two-way communication which happens throughout a government’s term.

1. It battles for the truth

To enable citizens to make meaningful decisions about how they want society to function, they need access to truthful and accurate information about a wide variety of topics. This can only happen if people feel safe vocalizing the issues affecting their communities.

Safeguarding freedom of speech encourages people to speak out, which makes it easier to tackle systemic issues from the inside. This deters people from abusing their power, which helps everyone in the long run.

2. It makes everyone more accountable

When it comes to elections, citizens are given the opportunity to hold their politicians accountable. In order to decide who to vote for, they need to understand how well a political party has performed while in power and whether or not they fulfilled their election promises.

By reporting on society’s most pressing social issues, media outlets and civil society organisations (CSOs) contribute to the public’s perception of how well the government is doing. However, this is only helpful if they are free to truthfully cover stories that are critical of the state.

3. Active participation of citizens

Elections and referendums are a good opportunity for citizens to shape the direction of society, but they only come round every couple of years.

Free speech reinforces other fundamental rights such as freedom of assembly, which citizens exercise to influence public decision-making by attending protests, demonstrations or participating in campaigns.

This allows them to protest an unpopular decision, such as the ban on abortion in Poland, or show the government they want stronger political action on an important issue. When protestors in Germany filled the streets in their hundreds of thousands protesting the war in Ukraine, this sent a strong message to the government that the people supported strong sanctions against Russia.

A more recent positive example of the effects freedom of assembly and active participation has, can be seen in Poland. The opposition was able to rally political participation through large pro-democratic protests before the election in October of 2023 . Their subsequent win ousted the PiS, which was systematically dismantling principles of democracy in Poland. This shows how exercising the right to freedom of assembly and free speech helped save Poland's declining democracy.

4. Promotes equal treatment of minorities

In a democratic society everyone should be treated equally and fairly. However, minority groups who are underrepresented in government are often side-lined, and their opinions' neglected in favour of those belonging to the dominant social group.

By campaigning and speaking openly about the issues faced by their communities, marginalized people can gain widespread public support for their cause. This increases their ability to influence public agenda-setting and put an end to human rights abuses.

Speaking up starts with getting informed.

5. necessary for change and innovation.

We all want society to become better for everyone, but for that to happen society’s need to encourage and foster freedom of expression. Authoritarian governments who suppress criticism and withhold public interest information deny citizens the right to make informed decisions or take action about important social issues.

Concealing vital intelligence causes problems to fester and worsen. This hinders progress and makes finding a solution much harder when the issue finally comes to light.

For example in China, the doctor who attempted to warn the medical community of a deadly virus – Covid-19 – was told to "stop making false comments" and was investigated for "spreading rumours". This had the devastating effect of delaying the introduction of measures to contain Covid-19, which resulted in a global pandemic and millions of deaths.

How is freedom of speech being threatened?

1.government.

Authoritarian governments whose primary aim is to stay in power want to ensure that any media coverage is favourable. In order to control the public narrative, they appoint political figures to media authorities and exercise financial and editorial control over mainstream media outlets. As reported by our member organization in our 2022 Media Freedom Act . Hungary is an egregious example of this where over 80% of the media market is controlled directly or indirectly by the Hungarian government.

Governments use restrictive legal reforms, crowd control by police or exceptional emergency measures to curb freedom of expression.

As an emergency response during the Covid-19 pandemic countries such as Belgium, Bulgaria, Germany, Slovenia and Spain disproportionately curtailed exercise of the right to protest in the interest of public health through heavy-handed policing and the arrest of activists.

Other legal tools used by the state to control the flow of information is to criminalize the spread of false information or deny access to information.

In Russia, the invasion of Ukraine is referred to by Putin as a “military operation” and it is understood amongst Russians that using the word ‘war’ will put them afoul of the “fake news” laws which could land them with a prison sentence of up to 15 years. As a result, many Russians who oppose the war are cowed into silence, while others aren’t aware of the truth of what is happening.

3.Attacks on journalists, CSOs and Whistleblowers

Politicians and powerful figures who fear journalists will expose their corrupt behaviour resort to dirty, extra-legal tactics to silence them. Common strategies include legal harassment through SLAPPs (strategic lawsuits) or smear campaigns aimed at discrediting critical CSOs .

Whistleblowers have faced devastating personal consequences for shedding light on activities against the public’s interest such as corruption, illegal activities or malpractice.

Journalists and civil rights defenders are also increasingly in danger of verbal or physical violence, including by police.

Hate speech or online trolling can create a hostile digital environment which discourages women and margainlized people from participating in online social debates.

However, well-intentioned efforts to tackle this issue can inadvertently create the same silencing effects.

The European Union is currently pushing through the Digital Services Act , aimed at making the internet a safer place and protecting freedom of expression online. However, its proposed solution to stamp out disinformation could do the opposite. In our letter to MEPs we advised against the mandatory use of upload filters to remove harmful online content, as they are not sophisticated enough to distinguish between humour and abuse. If used, they could limit free speech online.

5. Self-censorship

When freedom of speech is under attack, it sends the message that telling the truth can put you in danger. The ambiguity that exists around what is acceptable or not leads people to tread with caution, so they begin to self-censor . Our 2022 Media Freedom Report found that journalists in Bulgaria, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Slovenia and Sweden were self-censoring due to online attacks or harassment.

How to protect freedom of speech?

In order to safeguard free speech, there should be laws in place which protect individuals and organisations who are threatened for exposing corruption or unethical behaviour. Journalists, watchdogs, activists and whistleblowers should be given robust legal protection which enables them to carry out their work safely and shields them from retaliation from those seeking to silence them.

This is why Liberties is working hard to campaign for better laws to safeguard media freedom. The Media Freedom Act (MFA) currently being drafted by the European Commission has the potential to make a real difference. We sent the Commission our Media Freedom Report auditing the state of media freedom in 15 EU countries, as well as a policy paper outlining recommendations which we believe the MFA should address. It should include measures to further transparency in media ownership and elaborate on rules on how to make journalistic work more safe.

Value knowledge by supporting Liberties All great movements begin with sharing information. Our explainer articles help you understand the most pressing human rights issues, so together we can stand up for what matters. Support us by buying one of our activist authors a cup of coffee. Add your voice to ours. Donate today.

More Stories

DSA: Response to EU Public Consultation on Transparency Reports

Civil Society Statement: Commissioner Breton Needs to Clarify Comments About the DSA Allowing for Platform Blocking

Access to Information: Definition, Importance, Expansion

Your contribution matters.

As a watchdog organisation, Liberties reminds politicians that respect for human rights is non-negotiable. We're determined to keep championing your civil liberties, will you stand with us? Every donation, big or small, counts.

We’re grateful to all our supporters

Your contributions help us in the following ways

► Liberties remains independent ► It provides a stable income, enabling us to plan long-term ► We decide our mission, so we can focus on the causes that matter ► It makes us stronger and more impactful

Subscribe to stay in

You will get the latest reports before anyone else!

You can follow what we are doing for your rights!

You will know about our achivements!

Show me a sample!

What is the role of free speech in a democratic society?

Book co-edited by prof. geoffrey stone examines evolution, future of first amendment.

Free speech has been an experiment from the start—or at least that’s what Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes suggested nearly a century ago in his dissent in  Abrams v. United States , one of the first decisions to interpret and shape the doctrine that would come to occupy a nearly sacred place in America’s national identity.

Since then, First Amendment jurisprudence has stirred America in novel ways, forcing deep introspection about democracy, society and human nature and sometimes straddling the political divide in unexpected fashion. In the past 100 years, free speech protections have ebbed and flowed alongside America’s fears and progress, adapting to changing norms but ultimately growing in reach.

And now, this piece of the American experiment faces a new set of challenges presented by the ever-expanding influence of technology as well as sharp debates over the government’s role in shaping the public forum.

That’s why Geoffrey R. Stone, the Edward Levi Distinguished Service Professor at the University of Chicago Law School, and Lee Bollinger, the president of Columbia University, two of the country’s leading First Amendment scholars, brought together some of the nation’s most influential legal scholars in a new book to explore the evolution—and the future—of First Amendment doctrine in America. 

The Free Speech Century  (Oxford University Press) is a collection of 16 essays by Floyd Abrams, the legendary First Amendment lawyer; David Strauss, the University of Chicago’s Gerald Ratner Distinguished Service Professor of Law; Albie Sachs, former justice of the Constitutional Court of South Africa; Tom Ginsburg, the University of Chicago’s Leo Spitz Professor of International Law; Laura Weinrib, a University of Chicago Professor of Law; Cass Sunstein, a professor at Harvard Law School; and others.

“Lee and I were law clerks together at the Supreme Court during the 1972 term,” Stone said. “I was with Justice Brennan and Lee was with Chief Justice Burger. We have both been writing, speaking and teaching about the First Amendment now for 45 years. This was a good time, we decided, to mark the 100th anniversary of the Supreme Court’s first decision on the First Amendment with a volume that examines four basic themes: The Nature of First Amendment Jurisprudence, Major Critiques and Controversies over Current Doctrine, The International Impact of our First Amendment Jurisprudence, and the Future of Free Speech in a World of Ever-Changing Technology. Our hope is that this volume will enlighten, inspire and challenge readers to think about the role of free speech in a free and democratic society.”

Stone, JD’71, has spent much of his career examining free speech— a topic he first became passionate about as a University of Law School student.

The University has a long tradition of upholding freedom of expression. UChicago’s influential 2015 report by the Committee on Freedom of Expression, which Stone chaired, became a model for colleges and universities across the country.

The collection takes on pressing issues, such as free expression on university campuses, hate speech, the regulation of political speech and the boundaries of free speech on social media, unpacking the ways in which these issues are shaping the norms of free expression.

One essay, for instance, explores how digital behemoths like Facebook, Twitter and Google became “gatekeepers of free expression”—a shift that contributor Emily Bell, a Columbia University journalism professor, writes “leaves us at a dangerous point in democracy and freedom of the press.” Her article examines foreign interference in the 2016 election and explores some of the questions that have emerged since, such as how to balance traditional ideas of a free press with the rights of citizens to hear accurate information in an information landscape that is now dominated by social media.

Technology, the editors write, has presented some of the most significant questions that courts, legal scholars, and the American public will face in the coming decades.

“While vastly expanding the opportunities to participate in public discourse, contemporary means of communication have also arguably contributed to political polarization, foreign influence in our democracy, and the proliferation of ‘fake’ news,” Stone writes in the introduction. “To what extent do these concerns pose new threats to our understanding of ‘the freedom of speech, and of the press’? To what extent do they call for serious reconsideration of some central doctrines and principles on which our current First Amendment jurisprudence is based?”

In another essay, Strauss, an expert in constitutional law, examines the principles established in the 1971 Pentagon Papers case,  New York Times Co. v. United States.  The landmark ruling blocked an attempt at prior restraint by the Nixon administration, allowing the  New York Times  and  Washington Post  to publish a classified report that reporters had obtained about America’s role in Vietnam. The threat to national security wasn’t sufficiently immediate or specific to warrant infringing on the papers’ right to publish, the Court said at the time.

But today’s world is different, Strauss argues. It is easier to leak large amounts of sensitive information—and publication is no longer limited to a handful of media companies with strict ethical guidelines. What’s more, the ease with which information can be shared—digitally as opposed to carefully sneaking papers in batches from locked cabinets to a photocopier, as military analyst Daniel Ellsberg did when leaking the Pentagon Papers—means that a larger number of people can act as leakers. That can include those who don’t fully understand the information they are sharing, which many have argued was the case when former IT contractor Edward Snowden allegedly leaked millions of documents from the National Security Agency in 2013.

“[T]he stakes are great on both sides,” Strauss writes, “and the world has changed in ways that make it important to rethink the way we deal with the problem.”

Ultimately, the health of the First Amendment will depend on two things, Bollinger writes: a continued understanding that free speech plays a critical role in democratic society—and a recognition that the judicial branch doesn’t claim sole responsibility for achieving that vision. The legislative and executive branches can support free speech as well.

What’s more, modern-day challenges do not have to result in an erosion of protections, Bollinger argues.

“[O]ur most memorable and consequential decisions under the First Amendment have emerged in times of national crises, when passions are at their peak and when human behavior is on full display at its worst and at its best, in times of war and when momentous social movements are on the rise,” he writes. “Freedom of speech and the press taps into the most essential elements of life—how we think, speak, communicate, and live within the polity. It is no wonder that we are drawn again and again into its world.”

—Adapted from an article that first appeared on the University of Chicago Law School website.

Related content

• Examining the importance of free expression
• Podcast: SCOTUS Nears Unimaginable Era with Geoffrey Stone

Publications

The Free Speech Century

Geoffrey R. Stone, Lee C. Bollinger

Get more at UChicago news delivered to your inbox.

Top Stories

• ‘Sneakers to Scrubs’ program guides South and West Side kids from courtside to classroom

UChicago alum named 2025 Marshall Scholar

• UChicago to collaborate with IBM, Illinois on new National Quantum Algorithm Center

Related Topics

Latest news, uchicago students engage their senses outside the classroom.

Climate Change

COP29 provides UChicago students with unique perspective on climate change and policy

UChicago students build app to tackle South Side flooding crises

Nature’s 10

Wendy Freedman one of Nature’s 10 people who helped shape science in 2024

Go 'Inside the Lab' at UChicago

Explore labs through videos and Q&As with UChicago faculty, staff and students

Meet A UChicagoan

‘Scientific polymath’ Stephanie Palmer paves her own path to intellectual freedom

Computational linguistics

Researchers use AI and behavior to pinpoint when children begin productive language

Around uchicago.

UChicago Prof. James A. Robinson and alum John Jumper awarded Nobel Prizes

Partnerships

UChicago to collaborate with IBM, Illinois on new National Quantum Algorithm Ce…

Uchicago celebrates opening of john w. boyer center in paris.

New Institute

UChicago launches groundbreaking new institute to confront climate change

Nobel Prize

Nobel laureate finds his ‘calling’ in studying the world

How an ‘accidental chemist’ honed his approach at UChicago on the way to a Nobel Prize

Film History

“Throughout my time at UChicago, I’ve sought to provide opportunities to share scholarship with the public”

Scholarship

Why is Freedom of speech important in a democracy?

Why is Freedom of Speech Important in a Democracy?

In a democracy, freedom of speech is one of the fundamental rights that ensures the free exchange of ideas, opinions, and information. It is a cornerstone of a healthy and functioning democracy, as it allows individuals to express themselves freely, without fear of censorship or reprisal. In this article, we will explore why freedom of speech is important in a democracy, highlighting its importance in protecting individual rights, promoting social cohesion, and fostering a democratic culture.

Protecting Individual Rights

One of the primary reasons freedom of speech is important in a democracy is that it protects individual rights. In a free society, individuals have the right to express their opinions and ideas, regardless of their views or opinions. This freedom from censorship and retribution is essential for protecting the rights of minorities and vulnerable groups . For example, individuals with disabilities, religious minorities, and LGBTQ+ individuals may face marginalization and exclusion. Freedom of speech ensures that they are able to express themselves and have their rights respected.

| Democracy : The right to freedom of speech is enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). These human rights instruments guarantee the right to freedom of expression, assembly, and association, as well as the right to freedom of opinion and thought.

Promoting Social Cohesion

Freedom of speech also plays a crucial role in promoting social cohesion in a democracy. It allows diverse voices to be heard, fostering a more inclusive and tolerant society . When people feel that their opinions and views are valued and respected, they are more likely to engage with others, participate in democratic processes, and contribute to the common good. This, in turn, helps to build trust and strengthen social bonds among citizens.

| Democracy : A society that values diversity and promotes social cohesion is more likely to function effectively in the long term. This is because diverse perspectives and experiences can lead to better decision-making, more informed policy-making, and a more harmonious social fabric.

Fostering a Democratic Culture

Freedom of speech is also essential for fostering a democratic culture in a society. It ensures that the rule of law is respected and that citizens are able to hold those in power accountable . When individuals are free to express themselves, they are more likely to engage in participatory and democratic activities, such as voting, activism, and civic engagement.

| Democracy : The rule of law is essential to a democratic society. When citizens are able to express themselves freely, they are more likely to hold those in power accountable and to demand that they respect the rights and freedoms of others .

Balancing Freedom of Speech with Order and Community

While freedom of speech is essential, it must be balanced with considerations of order and community. Too much freedom of speech can lead to the spread of misinformation, the erosion of social norms, and the undermining of the rule of law . However, constraints on freedom of speech can also be necessary to protect the rights of vulnerable groups and to maintain social order .

| Democracy : The balance between freedom of speech and order is a delicate one. While it is essential to protect the rights of minorities and vulnerable groups, too much freedom of speech can lead to social unrest and the erosion of social norms .

Challenges to Freedom of Speech in a Democracy

Despite the importance of freedom of speech in a democracy, there are challenges that can undermine its exercise. One of the most significant challenges is the rise of hate speech and incitement to violence . In recent years, we have seen a significant increase in the use of hate speech and incitement to violence online and offline. This has led to the rise of online harassment, hate crimes, and other forms of violence .

| Democracy : The rise of hate speech and incitement to violence is a significant challenge to freedom of speech in a democracy. It requires a concerted effort to address this issue, including education and awareness-raising campaigns, as well as the implementation of effective laws and policies to regulate hate speech and online harassment .

In conclusion, freedom of speech is essential to a functioning democracy, protecting individual rights, promoting social cohesion, and fostering a democratic culture . However, there are challenges that can undermine its exercise, including the rise of hate speech and incitement to violence . By understanding the importance of freedom of speech in a democracy, we can work to protect and promote this fundamental human right, ensuring that our society remains a vibrant and inclusive place for all citizens.

Unlock the Future: Watch Our Essential Tech Videos!

Leave a comment cancel reply.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Home — Essay Samples — Government & Politics — Democracy — The Importance of Democracy in Today’s World

The Importance of Democracy in Today's World

• Categories: Democracy

About this sample

Words: 629 |

Published: Jan 31, 2024

Words: 629 | Page: 1 | 4 min read

Table of contents

Historical perspective on democracy, principles and features of democracy, the advantages of democracy, challenges and criticisms of democracy, case studies of democracy.

• "Democracy: A Journal of Ideas." Democracy: A Journal of Ideas. https://democracyjournal.org/
• Colomer, Josep M. "Political Institutions: Democracy and Social Choice." Oxford University Press, 2001.
• Diamond, Larry, and Marc F. Plattner, eds. "The Global Divergence of Democracies." Johns Hopkins University Press, 2001.

Cite this Essay

To export a reference to this article please select a referencing style below:

Let us write you an essay from scratch

• 450+ experts on 30 subjects ready to help
• Custom essay delivered in as few as 3 hours

Get high-quality help

Prof. Kifaru

Verified writer

• Expert in: Government & Politics

+ 120 experts online

By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy . We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email

No need to pay just yet!

Related Essays

3 pages / 1557 words

3 pages / 1300 words

1 pages / 481 words

3 pages / 1488 words

Remember! This is just a sample.

You can get your custom paper by one of our expert writers.

121 writers online

Still can’t find what you need?

Browse our vast selection of original essay samples, each expertly formatted and styled

Related Essays on Democracy

In Leviathan, Thomas Hobbes lists three types of common wealth: aristocracy, democracy and monarchy. The commonwealth is a political community, with a sovereign as the soul to administer litigious and non-litigious affairs, such [...]

From the establishment of the first colonies in America, the early colonial government policies laid the foundation for the political system that continues to shape the United States today. This essay will explore the lasting [...]

Voter suppression is a contentious issue that strikes at the heart of democratic principles and the right to fair representation. In recent years, concerns about voter suppression tactics have intensified, sparking debates on [...]

In a democracy, the public's role in shaping law enforcement practices is essential for ensuring effective, fair, and accountable law enforcement. Citizen participation, transparency, accountability, and community engagement are [...]

Amendment 71, while well-intentioned, ultimately hampers the democratic process by imposing stricter requirements for constitutional amendments. It gives disproportionate power to rural areas, limits the ability of grassroots [...]

A functioning democracy is defined by various characteristics, like freedom of speech, equality, human rights, rule of law and many more. When autocratic rulers or monarchs were in power these achievements of modern society [...]

Related Topics

By clicking “Send”, you agree to our Terms of service and Privacy statement . We will occasionally send you account related emails.

Where do you want us to send this sample?

By clicking “Continue”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy.

Be careful. This essay is not unique

This essay was donated by a student and is likely to have been used and submitted before

Download this Sample

Free samples may contain mistakes and not unique parts

Sorry, we could not paraphrase this essay. Our professional writers can rewrite it and get you a unique paper.

Please check your inbox.

We can write you a custom essay that will follow your exact instructions and meet the deadlines. Let's fix your grades together!

Get Your Personalized Essay in 3 Hours or Less!

We use cookies to personalyze your web-site experience. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .

• Instructions Followed To The Letter
• Deadlines Met At Every Stage
• Unique And Plagiarism Free

Essay on Importance of Democracy

Students are often asked to write an essay on Importance of Democracy in their schools and colleges. And if you’re also looking for the same, we have created 100-word, 250-word, and 500-word essays on the topic.

Let’s take a look…

100 Words Essay on Importance of Democracy

What is democracy.

Democracy is a system where people have the power to decide. They choose their leaders by voting.

Freedom of Expression

In a democracy, everyone can share their thoughts. They can speak, write, or protest without fear.

Equality for All

Democracy treats everyone equally. No matter who you are, your vote counts the same.

Change is Possible

If people are unhappy with their leaders, they can vote for change. This keeps leaders responsible.

Democracy is important because it gives power to the people. It promotes freedom, equality, and the possibility of change.

250 Words Essay on Importance of Democracy

Introduction to democracy.

Democracy, derived from the Greek words ‘demos’ (people) and ‘kratos’ (power), signifies the rule of the people. It is a form of government where power is vested in the hands of the citizens, allowing them to participate in the decision-making processes that shape their lives.

Democratic Participation: A Fundamental Right

The cornerstone of democracy is the principle of ‘equal representation’. Every citizen, regardless of their social, economic, or cultural background, has an equal voice. This inclusivity fosters a sense of belonging and encourages active participation in governance. It allows citizens to express their views, choose their representatives, and hold them accountable, thereby ensuring transparency and minimizing corruption.

Democracy: A Catalyst for Social Progress

Democracy promotes social progress by safeguarding fundamental human rights and freedoms. It provides the platform for the free exchange of ideas, fostering innovation and creativity. Democracies are typically more responsive to citizens’ needs, leading to higher levels of societal welfare and development.

The Role of Democracy in Conflict Resolution

Democracy plays a crucial role in conflict resolution. It provides mechanisms like dialogue, negotiation, and legal actions to peacefully resolve disputes. This prevents escalation to violence and contributes to a stable and peaceful society.

Conclusion: The Imperative of Democracy

In conclusion, democracy is not just a form of government; it is a way of life that upholds the dignity and freedom of individuals. It fosters equality, facilitates social progress, and ensures peaceful coexistence. However, it requires active participation and vigilance from citizens to function effectively. Thus, the importance of democracy cannot be overstated.

500 Words Essay on Importance of Democracy

Introduction.

Democracy, a political system that empowers the masses, serves as the cornerstone of modern civilization. It is more than just a governance system; it is a social mechanism that fosters equality, freedom, and participation, facilitating the holistic development of a society.

The Essence of Democracy

At its core, democracy is about the will of the people. It ensures that the government is accountable to its citizens and that everyone has an equal say in decisions that affect their lives. This principle of equality is fundamental to a democratic society, as it ensures that power is not concentrated in the hands of a few.

Democracy and Human Rights

Democracy is intrinsically linked to human rights. It ensures that every individual is protected by law and that their rights are not infringed upon. This protection extends to freedom of speech, religion, and assembly, among others. By providing a platform for people to express their views, democracy fosters an environment of tolerance and mutual respect.

Participatory Governance

Democracy is a participatory form of governance, meaning that citizens have the right to participate in the decision-making processes. This can take the form of voting in elections, participating in public debates, or being part of civic organizations. This participatory nature of democracy fosters a sense of community and encourages citizens to engage with societal issues.

Democracy and Socio-Economic Development

Democracy is also crucial for socio-economic development. It encourages transparency, which is essential for economic growth. By promoting fair competition and providing equal opportunities, it fosters an environment conducive to innovation and progress. Moreover, the equitable distribution of resources that democracy ensures plays a pivotal role in reducing social disparities.

The Challenges of Democracy

Despite its numerous benefits, democracy is not without its challenges. It requires an informed and active citizenry to function effectively. Furthermore, it is susceptible to misuse, with populist leaders occasionally exploiting democratic institutions for personal gain. However, these challenges do not diminish the importance of democracy; instead, they serve as reminders of the need for constant vigilance and active participation from all citizens.

In conclusion, democracy is vital for the development of a just and equitable society. It provides a platform for citizens to voice their opinions, ensures the protection of human rights, and fosters socio-economic development. Despite the challenges it faces, the importance of democracy cannot be overstated. As responsible citizens, it is our duty to uphold democratic values and ensure that they are not compromised.

That’s it! I hope the essay helped you.

If you’re looking for more, here are essays on other interesting topics:

• Essay on Democracy Is the Best Form of Government
• Essay on Importance of Artificial Intelligence
• Essay on Artificial Intelligence Pros and Cons

Apart from these, you can look at all the essays by clicking here .

Happy studying!

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

The ReidOut Blog

From the reidout with joy reid.

• ALL REIDOUTBLOG POSTS
• THE REIDOUT
• FULL EPISODES

Obama trades optimism for harsh realism in speech on democracy

By Ja'han Jones

Barack Obama delivered a speech about the importance of pluralism at his foundation’s Democracy Forum in Chicago on Thursday. There’s a decent chance you missed it — and he knows why that’s likely the case. 

The former president said he received “groans and eye rolls” from friends when he told them he’d be speaking about democracy and pluralism, adding:

And it’s understandable, after all; here in the United States we have just been through a fierce, hard-fought election, and it’s fair to say it did not turn out as they hoped. And for them, talk of bridging our differences when the country and the world seem so bitterly divided felt like an academic exercise.

The crux of Obama’s speech was that democracy in a diverse nation is difficult and requires compromise — but is ultimately worth the effort. In that sense, it was a quintessential Obama speech, and like others he’s given on similar themes, this one was heavy on the “can’t we all just get along” ethos that has made the former president both an incomparably successful politician and, for some, a deeply frustrating ally in activism. 

And he admitted that belief in this principle is hard to sell at a time when it seems many voters don’t care about democracy at all.

His tone here was a bit more realistic than the optimistic Obama many tend to think of . Obama was still hopeful , for example, when speaking about organizers who’ve devised innovative ways to unite people around important issues. But he also talked about how, historically, it’s been easier for white people to embrace democratic values when they don’t have to worry about how those values will also benefit nonwhite people — and I’d argue that is a key conflict in our increasingly diverse nation now. And Obama was pretty straightforward about the obstacles to liberalism’s survival in the U.S., including a social media–obsessed society that encourages ideological silos and blatant efforts to undermine democracy. 

For example, he said:

What happens when the other side has repeatedly and abundantly made clear they’re not interested in playing by the rules? It’s a problem. And when that happens, we fight for what we believe in. There are going to be times, potentially, when one side tries to stack the deck and lock in a permanent grip on power, either by actively suppressing votes, or politicizing the armed forces, or using the judiciary or criminal justice system to go after their opponents. And in those circumstances, pluralism does not call for us to just stand back and say, ‘Well, I’m not sure that’s OK.’ In those circumstances, a line has been crossed, and we have to stand firm and speak out and organize and mobilize as forcefully as we can.

At one point, Obama said the political reforms he’d like to see — like nonpartisan redistricting, which he said would weaken polarization — are probably not going to happen “anytime soon,” given the current political environment. But he warned about the need to build coalitions to prevent the rise of politicians who exploit divisions and direct violence against their political enemies and suppress free speech.

I can see how a liberal might hear these things and feel despondent, like their hero has lost all hope. But I heard a Barack Obama who seems to be smoldering with a bit of political rage. The old Obama motivated people with optimism for what the country could be if they come together. This current version seems ready to motivate them with a warning about what can happen if they don’t.

Ja’han Jones is The ReidOut Blog writer. He’s a futurist and multimedia producer focused on culture and politics. His previous projects include “Black Hair Defined” and the “Black Obituary Project.”

• ENCYCLOPEDIA
• IN THE CLASSROOM

Home » Perspective » Free speech is the heart of democracy. But who decides what speech should be free?

Free speech is the heart of democracy. But who decides what speech should be free?

By Michael Blanding, Tufts Now, published on February 25, 2024

Adobe Stick photo

Michael Glennon , professor of constitutional and international law at The Fletcher School, has been troubled by a growing trend to censor speech, from college campuses to social media to the halls of government itself. In a provocative new book,  Free Speech and Turbulent Freedom: The Dangerous Allure of Censorship in the Digital Era , he argues that such bans—while often well-meaning—are almost always counterproductive, creating more problems than they solve.

The book’s sweeping argument runs from 19th-century Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., who set the foundations of First Amendment law, all the way to the most recent social media controversies.

Glennon spoke with  Tufts Now  about the importance of free speech and why he believes a “marketplace of ideas” is the best antidote to tyranny.

In your introduction, you describe the change you’ve observed in students over the last few years when it comes to free speech. How did that inspire you to write this book?

Students’ attitudes toward free speech have changed dramatically. Nationwide, over half of college students believe that schools shouldn’t allow a speaker on campus who has previously expressed ideas they intensely dislike, and over 30 percent believe it’s acceptable to drown out speakers to prevent them from speaking.

Many of these students think that suppressing free speech is somehow necessary to preserve democracy. I wrote the book to suggest that this view is profoundly and dangerously mistaken.

Freedom of speech is the lifeblood of democracy. They both rest on the same premise: that people are able to sort out for themselves what’s true and what’s false, and that it’s for individuals, not the government, to judge what’s in their own best interests.

You devote the first part of the book to Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. and his journey into skepticism about universal morality. To whom is that relevant today? Many of today’s students have a keen thirst for social justice, which I admire. When Holmes was their age, he shared that thirst, dropping out of college to enlist in the Union Army in a war against slavery, in which he was nearly killed several times. He became very skeptical of people who believe they have unique access to universal, absolute truth, who view their adversaries as evil incarnate. That, he believed, leads ultimately to violence. All of us today need to approach public debate with a bit of humility, recognizing that none of us is infallible and that rigid moral certitude leads down a dangerous path.

You argue that government censorship is wrong and even counterproductive. What are some of the reasons?

We know from centuries of experience, in many countries, that censorship inevitably backfires. It discredits the censors, who are seen as patronizing elites. It demeans listeners who are told they can’t handle the truth. It makes martyrs and heroes out of the censored and drives their speech underground where it’s harder to rebut.

Suffragettes, civil rights leaders, and LGBTQ+ activists all have relied on free speech to get their messages out. Censorship alienates the public, generates distrust, fosters social division, and sparks political instability.

It’s not that some speech isn’t harmful—it’s that trying to suppress it causes greater harm.

Many people would probably be surprised to learn that hate speech such as marching with Nazi paraphernalia or burning a cross at a demonstration deriding Black and Jewish people is protected under the First Amendment. Why is it protected?

Not all hateful speech is protected. Incitement to violence, fighting words, defamation, and true threats are all often hateful yet that speech is not protected. But other hateful speech is protected, for several reasons.

Hatred is a viewpoint. It’s for the individual to think and feel as he or she wishes; it’s only when the individual crosses the line between thought and action to incite violence or defame or threaten someone that the state can intervene.

Hate speech laws are also invariably vague and overbroad, leading to arbitrary and abusive enforcement. In the real world, speech rarely gets punished because it hurts dominant majorities. It gets punished because it hurts disadvantaged minorities.

Many Americans feel it is OK to ban clearly false information online, but you argue that would be a bad idea. Why?

The ultimate problem with banning falsehoods is that to do so you’d need an official Ministry of Truth, which could come up with an endless list of officially banned falsehoods. Not only would that list inevitably be self-serving, but it could be wrong.

Even when it comes to clear falsehoods, there are reasons to leave them up. [Former President Donald] Trump claimed, for example, that the size of the crowd at his inauguration was larger than [former President Barack] Obama’s, which was indisputably false. But the statement had the effect of calling into question not only Trump’s veracity but also his mental soundness, which is important for voters to assess.

You say after Trump’s participation in the January 6 uprising, social media platforms banned him for the wrong reasons. What do you mean?

They were wrong to apply a norm of international human rights law in banning him—a supposed prohibition against “glorifying violence.” That’s a vague, overly broad standard that can pick up everything from praising Medal of Honor winners to producing  Top Gun .

We’re dealing here with an American president speaking from the White House to the American people, so I say the proper standard should have been the U.S. First Amendment and whether Trump intended to incite imminent violence and whether that violence was likely. Under that test, I think it’s a close case.

What was wrong with the way the government tried to curb “misinformation” about COVID-19?

Justice Louis Brandeis [who served on the Supreme Court from 1916 to 1939] said that the fitting remedy for evil counsels is good ones.

If someone counsels drinking bleach to cure COVID, the remedy is not to suppress it—it’s to point out why that’s wrong. But over and over, the government’s remedy for speech it didn’t like was to strongarm social media platforms to take it down.

The government wouldn’t have lost so much credibility if it had only said, “This is our best guess based on available evidence.” Instead, it spoke  ex cathedra  on masks, lockdowns, school closings, vaccine efficacy, infection rates, myocarditis, social distancing, you name it—claims that often turned out to be untenable—and then it bullied the platforms to censor prominent experts who took issue with its misinformation.

Many commentators are worried about disinformation and AI-generated “deep fakes” affecting the outcome of the 2024 election. What’s the best remedy for that?

The remedy for falsehoods is more speech, not enforced silence. If someone thinks a social media post contains altered imagery or audio, the initial solution is simply to say that and let the marketplace of ideas sort it out.  

Obviously counter-speech isn’t always the answer: You still run into eleventh-hour deep fakes that there’s no time to rebut. People do have privacy rights and interference with elections undercuts democracy.

The trick is to write legislation that catches malign fakery but doesn’t also pick up satire and humor that is obviously bogus. That’s not easy. Well-intended but sloppy laws often trigger serious unintended consequences.

This article first appeared on Tufts Now . It has been reprinted here by permission.

YOU MIGHT ALSO LIKE

Journalists anticipate renewed hostility from Trump administration

December 16, 2024

Calif. to consider requiring mental health warnings on social media sites

December 13, 2024

Perspective

How views of the first Pilgrims and Puritans differed on religion, respect for Native Americans

November 28, 2024

New book traces ‘grand collaboration’ between Jefferson and Madison to ensure separation of church and state

September 28, 2024

Explore The First Amendment Encyclopedia

More than 1,700 articles on First Amendment topics, court cases and history