Without the right to insult there is no freedom of speech

In the world in which we live today there is an eternal struggle for the defense of freedom of expression. Freedom of expression is understood as the right to say what one wants, without any limitation, through any means or form of communication, without being subject to being persecuted or accused for it.

pointing the finger at reality can become a crime in modern society, where it is ensured that freedom is full and complete for all citizens. However, it does not take into account that freedom of expression only makes sense when it is allowed to say things that we do not like or that we would not like to be said. Precisely the value of freedom of expression lies in being able to say what some do not want to be said.

In a postmodern world, where emotions and feelings prevail over facts and reality, the dictatorship of the politically correct establishes what must be considered correct and forces us to assume the most implausible lies.

Freedom of expression loses its raison d'être when one can only say what the groups in power, or the pressure groups, decide what is right and have the power to punish whoever says otherwise. Freedom of speech is not needed for some to say what others want to hear.

This is why I consider that we are a society whose concept of freedom was deformed thanks to sentimentalism and state paternalism, we become a society in which any offense can be penalized with prison. Without taking into account that the offense is subjective, the most susceptible, or those who have best organized their ability to offend themselves, may prohibit any mention made of them.

Freedom of expression is one of the natural rights of the human being, those who dare to challenge it by imposing rules to the use of it cannot be guarantors of freedoms and rights, they must be considered authoritarian and tyrants, those who aspire to a dictatorship seek to undermine the freedom of people in any field. Restricting freedom of expression is part of fascist principles where it is the ruler who decides what to read, what to write and what to say.

Often the offensive language is the only outlet that a people has before the impunity of the acts of corruption of their governors. It is very worrying that in many countries offenses are treated as crimes that in many cases are sentenced to prison. The idea is not to treat insults, calumnies and insults as crimes but as a civil action.

However, the insult should not even be the subject of a civil action. Diogenes de Sinope well said: "Insult dishonors the one who infers it and not the one who receives it". In other words, he who insults does not harm the honor of others but only that of himself. Whoever resorts to insult, is because he obviously lacks an argument and, with it, he agrees with his interlocutor. Whoever insults lacks the virtue of humility because he does not want to recognize that he has no argument to debate.

Law speaks of the principle of lesivity which establishes that there can be no crime without damage to a protected legal asset. The legal goods par excellence are: life, freedom and property. Insult and defamation are reprehensible, of that there is no doubt, but they do not violate any legal good and therefore their regulation and sanction should be outside the scope of government functions.

It is a shame that in modern democracies censorship is promoted on the basis of offensive language, countries that boast and exalt themselves for their defence of human rights and freedom of expression.

For all of the above, we must understand that the use of offensive language is an integral part of freedom of expression. As Evelyn Beatrice Hall rightly said, "I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.

We all have the ultimate freedom to reject all calls to act against another. And on the other hand, only physical violence is punishable by violent measures, such as deprivation of liberty.

Freedom is not the heritage of the just. It also belongs to those who have undesirable opinions that start understanding or coexistence. By defending them, we are defending ourselves against those who want to steal freedom from the ordinary citizen.

---

_{Posted from my blog with SteemPress : Here}

---