Many people believe that it is proper that we should be entitled to express our own thoughts, our own opinions, and our own speech, with very limited restrictions; of which, an example of a legitimate restriction, would be something like falsely calling out a fire at a crowded event, thereby leading to a possible ensuing panic and people getting potentially hurt. Yet, as much as people believe that we should have the right to freely express ourselves, there are plenty of other people that believe that there should indeed be restrictions in place, precluding hateful speech, as well as other forms of speech, that those particular people do not care for.
The very basic problem with any restriction on speech, is that, many governments, even ostensibly free and democratic ones, absolutely want to have some sort of control or supervision of what is so being said and propagated, thereby signifying that often governments find the temptation to censor speech, under the excuse, such as for the security of the homeland, or for the peace and harmony of the homeland, very tempting to activate, and thereby utilize reasonable excuses to do so, such as desiring to preclude what has been defined as “hate” speech or that which is overly critical of the state, for instance.
For certain governments, busy bodies, and those other people, that don't care to hear opinions that annoy them, they do so find, that when a given person or organization can thereby be silenced, of their opinions and of their viewpoints, that this thus serves to put these entitled privileged people and governments subsequently in pole position, to have just their viewpoints and just their opinions, to be accepted by the general population as legit; whereas those that dissent or have a contrary opinion, are not accorded the same respect or opportunity.
Sure, perhaps, it is inconvenient, when other people have different opinions, especially those opinions that offend us, or hurt us, or that appear to us to just be wrong; but none of us have the right to demand that another person or organization, simply be silenced, as if we are to be the sole arbiters of what is and what isn’t allowed. The fact of the matter is, that very few people, establish a viewpoint at a youngish age, in which, that viewpoint, never varies, never wavers, and never changes. To actually believe that a young adult or even someone a bit older, is so wise, and so astute, that they no longer have room for growth as they age, or for change, is clearly mistaken. This so signifies, that there are plenty of people that change their opinions and their viewpoints, based upon their life experiences as they grow older, if not all of the time, at least frequently enough, and dramatically enough, to end up, many a time, taking the very side that they so use to castigate against -- which is their unalienable right.
To be human, necessitates the free will to express ourselves in a way that we so wish, subject to sensible laws, as well as to believe what we so desire to believe, whether right or wrong. Therefore, to express the opinion, that certain people or certain organizations must be silenced, for the good of the people, seems to fundamentally ignore the salient fact that either we are all entitled to the same unalienable rights, which includes the freedom of speech and opinion, or we are not; and if we are not, we clearly are not free.