In the last decades the question obout necessity of freedom of speach was discussed very actively.  Of course, freedom of speach is a basic human right but anyway there are both: supporters and opponents of free speach.

Supporters argue that freedom of speach is a base of democracy. If we cannot say whatever we want - we cannot express our opinion about, for example, current government properly, so democratic principles dont work in this case. We have many examples in the world history when people were deprived of freedom of speach: remember communist regime in the Soviet Union, for example. Great authours like Orwell, Zamyatin and so on have showed us what happens when people are not allowed to exprepress their thoughts and doupts. So why do the people who are against freedom of speach still exist? They have the same information from history and literature, so what argumants do they have?

First of all they speak about censorchip. They suppose it is wrong when people use obscene vocabulary in TV programme or when somebody call others to fight againts certain group of people because of their nationality for example. So, I guess, the opponents of freedom of speach are not against it at all, they dont want to return into The Soviet Union. They just want to introduce certain restrictions. Amd to be honest I think that I am personally agree with this position and I will explain why giving this example: When we want to register on some internet-forum we are usually asked to confirm our consent with certain rules of behavior on this forum. We shouldnt swear, us obscen lexica, insult people because of their nationality, religion, gender an so on. And it is so right! We dont actually need the freedom of speach which insult others! Because our freedom end there freedom of other person begins.