The Factors That Contribute to the Restriction in Freedom of Speech and Information in Malaysia Towards Iukl's Local Students

should be limitations on free speech in schools so student can focus on studies and argued that

“If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear” (George Orwell). Whether the opinion is of extreme offense or not, censorship is not the answer nor is the limitation of the freedom of speech. Emerging the truth, can only be possible through the opposition of ideas, thus with no boundries, the full protection of freedom of speech is a necessary quality of any society.

Free speech is by far the most commonly recognized freedom in our everyday lives. The freedom of speech allows us to voice our own opinions without the severe repercussions of some countries. It allows us to say what we really feel and helps us learn how to communicate in true and meaningful ways. Along with this freedom, we must remember that there are limits to this freedom. While being arrested “you have the right to remain silent” and anything you say can be used against you in court. This freedom is not one to be taken for

Freedom of speech is the balance between personal liberty & government authority. Free speech started & began when the settlers came over to the United States from Europe & made the original British colonies (Freedom Of Speech, 2014). Because of this right being made, having the liberty of free speech means that an individual or the press have the absolute right to talk or express their opinions freely (Freedom Of Speech, 2014).

Although the First Amendment is not that vague, schools have struggled to define what its limits are for the past 40 years. One may argue that a student’s Freedom of Speech should not be limited because of our First Amendment rights, the fact that so many schools struggle to define their limits and that they all have different limits, also, limiting a student’s Freedom of Speech brings totalitarianism to schools.

In the pursuit of education, students strive to learn and develop their understanding of the world that surrounds them. Accordingly, it is the responsibility of the school administration to provide the means to that end. Yet, there is a polarized divide among schools and their interpretation of freedom of speech. This occurrence is experienced primarily at the university level but can be seen at all levels of education. At the epicenter of this dispute is the notion of censorship, specifically whether or not it is feasible to restrict what can and cannot be said by faculty and students alike. Advocates of freedom of speech assert that censorship violates our First Amendment right, a liberty that is inalienable. Proponents also argue that

The right to freedom of speech as one of the fundamental human rights is enshrined in The Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It is consisted of the freedom to speak, think and express oneself without censorship. Freedom of speech constitutes the essential foundations of a democratic society and the basic conditions for its progress and for the development. One of most important functions of the right to freedom of speech is that decision-making at all levels is preceded by discussion and consideration of a representative range of views. It enables the public to participate in making decisions based on the free flow of information and ideas. A decision made after adequate consultation is likely to be a better one which less imperfectly reflects

I’m in favor for the strict interpretation of the laws and rights in the case within the school the students have certain amount of free speech but when they are not in school they can speak what they want. For writing about pregnancy and divorce in the school newspaper that there should be certain limitation for how much they can write about those topics. The people do have the right of free speech but when you are in a school setting there is certain amount that the administrations will the students to have. For the reason that I have chosen the strict interpretation is because even though that the students may not have as

In, On the Repression of Free Expression, Mike Bloomberg argues that freedom of speech is needed on campuses. Bloomberg also believes it is not right to take away the privilege of learning from students, just because of other individual students. “we cannot others the right and privileges that we demand for ourselves” (Bloomberg.104). They cannot have campus wide trigger warnings over one individual student. Condensing what students could learn, is not helping their education. Professors should be allowed to teach and discuss the topics they have to without fear. “Ideas can be dangerous” (Bloomberg.105). Not everyone’s opinion will be one to agree with, nor everything a person has to say, but people have to adjust to the real world where everything is not sugar

Freedom of speech is more than just words, it is posters, petitions, rallies, protests, and more. This lets opinions be shared and spread to make a difference in the world. The problem is that in schools there is a limit on the amount of freedom of speech students can have. How are students supposed to feel like they have a voice when they are being told that they can only speak of certain topics? By what means could student be educated on their rights like the First Amendment if they cannot have full access to that right at all times? Students are brought together by freedom of speech, schools should not be stopping that. It is essential that freedom of speech in schools should not be limited because it gives students a voice, it educates them on their rights, and it brings students together.

“Freedom of expression is a fundamental human right. It reinforces all other human rights, allowing society to develop and progress. The ability to express our opinion and speak freely is essential to bring about change in society.” Freedom of Speech grants you the right and privilege to speak your mind without facing any type of consequence . I strongly believe that censorship and the lack of free speech can and will cause a negative effect on our world.

With all these truths, and the freedom to speak them, comes the question of who should hold the power and ability to speak their minds. In the United States, our society believes everyone should have the right to freedom of speech, to voice thoughts and opinions. Written down in the constitution is the promise to citizen rights, to all peoples who want to exercise those rights. “It was we the people; not we, the white male citizens,” who built up our nation and society, and the promise to freedom of speech (Anthony, par. 4). Women, children, teens, those of color should all be able to speak freely, to give shape to the opinions they hold like all the empowered men that speak freely. Not all governments and nations feel the same about this. In Singapore, they have their “own standards of social order as reflected in [their] laws” (Reyes, par. 3). Different nations feel differently about human rights and laws as presented by the United States, including freedom of speech, whether it is safe for everyone to speak their minds or just best to keep it to those who are fed lies from those of a higher position.

Freedom of speech is more than just the right to say what one pleases. Freedom of speech is the right to voice your opinion on certain topics or dilemmas around you. This basic right given to us in the First Amendment is being challenged by colleges who encourage “freedom of speech” with certain restrictions.

The term freedom of expression is sometimes used synonymously, but includes any act of seeking, receiving and imparting information or ideas, regardless of the medium used. In practice, the right to freedom of speech is not absolute in any country and the right is commonly subject to limitations, such as on libel, slander, obscenity, incitement to commit a crime, etc. The right to freedom of expression is recognized as a human right under Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and recognized in international human rights law in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). Article 19 of the ICCPR states that "[e]veryone shall have the right to hold opinions without interference" and "everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice".

Although by judging solely from the definition, political expression which covers the matters of public interest seems acceptable, it is undeniable that under the Act 10 of the Federal Constitution, clause 2 has stated that the parliament can impose law to restrict the freedom of speech. Such restrictions are said to protect the security of Malaysia, privileges of Parliament and the public order. Besides, Art 10 (4) also stated that the law can restrict the questioning of any matter, status, privilege and sovereignty. InterNations (2014) has also explained that there are also limitations of civil freedoms