Why is it difficult for scholars, judges, and lawmakers to balance robust speech protections with the necessity of maintaining a peaceful society? Provide evidence, examples, and/or scenarios.

It's difficult for scholars, judges, and lawmakers to balance robust speech protections with the necessity of maintaining a peaceful society because everyone has a freedom of speech.

It should be noted that one basic right that is protected in a democracy is freedom of speech. Free speech simply means the idea that people should express their ideas without fear of punishment.

It should be noted that certain types of speech can be dangerous, damaging, or hateful. Therefore, it can be difficult for scholars, judges, and lawmakers to balance robust speech protections with the necessity of maintaining a peaceful society.

Read related link on:

link

One of the most basic rights protected in a democracy is that of freedom of speech. Free speech is the idea that citizens deserve to be able to express their ideas without fear of punishment. However, while this right is generally accepted by most governments, it is also known that certain types of speech can be dangerous, damaging or hateful. Therefore, laws are implemented in order to regulate speech to a certain extent.

Balancing these two necessities can be quite difficult. Implementing robust speech protections would mean that the government strongly supports the right of people to speak with no repercussions. However, this would mean that people can attack certain groups (such as women, the LGBTQ+ community, or immigrants, for example) by justifying their actions under the umbrella of freedom of speech. Such behaviour would antagonize particular groups, making it difficult to maintain peace in society. It could also make it difficult for the targeted group to achieve equality in society.

jhrtih lkj gsoieds huh fdkh gj bsdfauio husgih usgerg rh