Freedom of Speech should be restricted

“Freedom of Speech should be Restricted” In many countries, freedom of speech is part of a person's natural human rights. However, in cases when a person's speech harms society, it may be restricted by the government. In your opinion, does the right to freedom of speech outweigh the right of the government to try to protect its society? In most democratic countries, they adhere to the principle which is "vox populi, vox Dei", which means that, "the voice of the people is the voice of God" where the right of free speech is guaranteed and some people say that this right should not include any limitations and not be restricted. It is undeniable that this right is critical to make a better society. Nonetheless, in my viewpoint, restrictions are indispensable and should be applied appropriately. To begin with, take the Internet as an example. Due to the advent and great advancement of modern telecommunication technology, these days the Internet is one of the most common tools to voice out ideas and thoughts among most people owing to its convenience and wider sense of accessibility. Because of its convenience, however, it is a fact that there are various opinions, including the extreme or derogating ones that can harm one's reputation or even put someone behind bars or worst into one's deathbed. Not to mention, a wide variety of ideas should be considered and accepted, but the too radical ones must be regulated by the government. Moreover, the government has to take strict yet practical actions to restrict vicious websites that show unethical ones or encourage people to commit heinous crimes. A further argument in favor of restrictions on freedom of speech is that the government must regulate rigidly yet fairly the activities of the far-right organizations. For instance, hate speech is one of the activities performed by far-right organizations. They attack the people who hold different races, ethnicity, religious beliefs and gender like LGBTQs. This kind of speech can raise societal disputes and arguments among people. The fact that they are also citizens like us, they should not be discriminated against instead should be treated equally as everyone does. As is often the case with them, they justify their actions by claiming that they have freedom of speech. However, these performances must be prohibited by the government. Lastly, there have been endless disputes between celebrities and paparazzi over privacy. Worldwide renowned celebrities are always suffering from being followed or heavily stalked by paparazzi and in many cases, their private lives are reported in detail which causes negative impacts on their respective lives. For instance, some of them commit suicide for the reason that they were extremely suffering from overly stalking. We have to bear in mind that they are also humans like us. They have their own private lives outside the limelight. Thus, they have the right to protection of privacy. The government should protect or safeguard them from excessive media coverage by legislating. To sum up, complete freedom of speech is undesirable for the fact that there is no such absolute right. Basically, the right to free speech should be considered as natural human rights. However, the government has a full duty to protect its citizens from abusing free speech. Thus, restrictions are integral.