Freedom of speech is the ability to express your thoughts and opinions without facing consequences such as retaliation or censorship. The core questions are: (1) what the balance between the person’s rights is, and the level of interference from the state, and (2) protect the community from organized attacks. This paper will describe and break down some of the complexities surrounding freedom of speech, its limitations and the balance between freedom and hate speech. This paper believes that free speech should not be censored because it is a fundamental right that improves the development of societies. It allows for the open exchange of ideas, creativity and innovation, and will enable people to share their thoughts and opinions without fear of censorship or retaliation. Free speech is essential for holding governments accountable and ensuring different perspectives are heard. Without it, many innovations and significant discoveries may have not been possible. However, one of the most challenging aspects of free speech is determining the limits for negativity and harm. The ability to create harm with words should be unacceptable. This was shown in the case of R v Keegstra in 1990, which dealt with hate speech in Canada. The case involved promoting hatred towards different ethnic groups, especially against Jews. Thus, showing the need for boundaries. But there are also cases where free speech faced consequences, as it was improperly dealt with, such as the case of Aditya Verma, a British-Indian student who made a threatening joke to his friends. This paper will analyze this case to show the complexities of free speech.
