Who benefits from freedom of speech? Who loses?

This essay argues that activists and journalists benefit from freedom of speech, whilst minority groups lose. This may be because journalists and activists face less societal obstacles due to freedom of speech than minority groups do. 

Journalists benefit from freedom of speech

It can be argued that journalists benefit from freedom of speech. This is because it enables them to express their views and opinions with limited restrictions. Further, journalists benefit from freedom of speech financially as they earn revenues out of using it to write their articles. Also, journalists benefit socially from freedom of speech. This is evident in newspapers such as The Guardian and the Daily Telegraph, which are prominent products of journalistic freedom of speech. Moreover, they benefit because freedom of speech constitutes a human right as written under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights. So, this allows journalists to benefit by writing articles suiting their own opinions. For example, a Turkish journalist released a newsletter that incited terrorism and unrest in Turkey. This displays that as a journalist, he benefited from freedom of speech, as it allowed for his propaganda to be spread.

However, it can be argued that journalists may lose from freedom of speech, such as in situations where they use it to write controversial articles inciting violence and terrorism. Consequently, they may lose commercially and socially as a result. Despite this, journalists base their whole livelihood on the principle of freedom of speech. It can be said that without freedom of speech, the articles journalists write would likely be restricted, limited and colourless. Hence, it can be argued that without it, they will lose even more than they may potentially lose from freedom of speech. 

Activists benefit 

It also seems that activists benefit from freedom of speech. This is since it lets them freely express opinions and make meaningful contributions to society through various means, such as social media platforms. Hence, freedom of speech benefits them, as they can not only see their views and thoughts take effect in society, but also feel that they have contributed to important world decisions. For instance, Greta Thumberg benefitted from freedom of speech in that it enabled her to constantly campaign about combating climate change. This has seen immense rewards, in that she is now working alongside world leaders to tackle it. Another example is Malala Yousafzai. She benefited from freedom of speech in that she successfully used it to share her experiences to encourage girls across the world to challenge social norms. She benefited hugely because of freedom of speech, as both her pioneering use of it, and her work encouraging others to use it, ended up earning her a Nobel Peace Prize.

Despite this, it may be said that activists may lose as a result of freedom of speech. For instance, they might receive heavy backlash and negative comments as a result of an opinion. In this way, they may lose their following or support. However, it appears that in society today, freedom of speech for activists is an essential and powerful tool that sparks change. So, it can be said that without it, these groups would lose more than they might potentially lose as a result of it. 

Minority groups lose 

Despite many groups benefiting, minority and underrepresented groups may lose because of freedom of speech. This is since freedom of speech may mean that these groups are persecuted and mistreated by those who abuse this human right as a way of speaking out against them. For example, in India, because of freedom of speech, fake and hurtful news was spread that Muslims, a minority sector in India, were the cause of spreading Covid-19 there. This example clearly shows the cruel misuse of freedom of speech, which leads to underrepresented and minority groups suffering and facing hostility. 

However, some contend that minority groups actually benefit from freedom of speech, as it lets them speak out against their tormentors. They also argue that freedom of speech enables these underrepresented groups to speak up, which benefits them, as their persecutors can be sanctioned, because of their use of freedom of speech to speak out against an ECHR protected characteristic, such as race. Despite this, it can be argued that since these minority groups are potentially less able to utilise freedom of speech freely, because of societal barriers, they would still lose, as their views and opinions still remain unheard. 

In conclusion, it may be said that groups such as journalists and activists benefit from freedom of speech because in society, they are in a better and more privileged position to, whereas those that lose as a result of it, such as minority groups, do so as they are restricted from using it, and benefiting from it, because of societal hurdles.