Why does the author mention incitement, defamation and disclosure of secrets?
Free speech is sometimes defended as if it were an all-or-nothing principle: either every opinion may be expressed, or the state decides which opinions are acceptable. This is a false choice. Every legal system already restricts speech that incites violence, defames individuals or discloses secrets, and none has collapsed into tyranny as a result. The real question is where the lines are drawn and who draws them. A restriction on abusive speech aimed at a group may be justified if it prevents real harm to that group's members. But the justification must be shown, not assumed. The danger of such laws is that they tend to be applied most readily against dissent that officials find irritating. A good test is whether the law would still seem sensible if it were administered by one's political opponents.
Answer and explanation
Correct answer: E. To show that restrictions on speech already exist without producing tyranny
- Step 1: The sentence says every system restricts these kinds of speech and none has collapsed into tyranny.
- Step 2: That undercuts the 'all-or-nothing' view by showing limits are normal.
Answer
To show that restrictions on speech already exist without producing tyranny.
Why not the others: The author does not say free speech never existed, call for extension, discuss misuse in this sentence, or rank secrets above opinions.
Practise more Free expression.
Free questions with an explanation for every one, and full timed LNAT mock tests.