In a diverse society, viewpoints are constantly in conflict. As a way to prevent this, some suggest that restriction on speech should be legislated or practiced through self-censorship, rather than robust free expression, which journalist Flemming Rose suggests is the best solution. In his book “The Tyranny of Silence”, Rose presents a number of well-crafted arguments in support of robust free expression, and addressed opposing views in such a way that I find his argument ultimately more effective.
` One of the arguments that Rose presents is that freedom of speech is the only way to counter extremism. In the marketplace of ideas, ideas seen as deplorable by most people will naturally fail to get positive attention they need to thrive. By prohibiting these ideas, they are only spread by those who support them, never receiving criticism. By allowing those ideas to reach the marketplace, critics can address them and prevent them from spreading to others, and inform people …show more content…
One claims that Muslims in modern Europe are comparable to Jews in 20th century Europe, and therefore speech against them must be prohibited, or there is a risk for intense discrimination or violent acts against Muslims. However, there are many ways that the situations of these two minority groups are not comparable. During the 20th century, Jews in Germany and areas controlled by Hitler had their rights taken away and endured violence. In modern Europe, Muslims have the same rights as all other European citizens, and are sometimes even granted special accommodations because of their religious practices. Even though most people would agree that preventing actions of discrimination and violence as seen in the Holocaust is a desirable action, there is no risk that the persecution of Jews in the 20th century will be repeated against Muslims in modern
` One of the arguments that Rose presents is that freedom of speech is the only way to counter extremism. In the marketplace of ideas, ideas seen as deplorable by most people will naturally fail to get positive attention they need to thrive. By prohibiting these ideas, they are only spread by those who support them, never receiving criticism. By allowing those ideas to reach the marketplace, critics can address them and prevent them from spreading to others, and inform people …show more content…
One claims that Muslims in modern Europe are comparable to Jews in 20th century Europe, and therefore speech against them must be prohibited, or there is a risk for intense discrimination or violent acts against Muslims. However, there are many ways that the situations of these two minority groups are not comparable. During the 20th century, Jews in Germany and areas controlled by Hitler had their rights taken away and endured violence. In modern Europe, Muslims have the same rights as all other European citizens, and are sometimes even granted special accommodations because of their religious practices. Even though most people would agree that preventing actions of discrimination and violence as seen in the Holocaust is a desirable action, there is no risk that the persecution of Jews in the 20th century will be repeated against Muslims in modern