* «What is freedom of expression? Without the freedom to offend, it ceases to exist» Salman Rushdie (1990). Discuss.

Freedom of expression is one of the most significant but also debatable freedoms within society: is freedom of expression the full right to say whatever we want or need to say? Or should there be limits?
Firstly, from a historical and political point of view, supporters argue that freedom of expression is the first to be overruled by any dictatorship. Therefore, its system and its leaders cannot be criticised and people cannot contest those who control or manipulate them. On the other hand, opposers may say that discrimination is of the cases where freedom of expression can turn into a weapon against a minority. For example, Afro-Americans were and still are common victims of racism, because people consider freedom of expression as the unlimited power to express anything they want.

Secondly, from a both moral and social perspective, it can be said that freedom of expression is necessary in its full dimension in order to have not only an open minded society but also a well informed one. For example, the art of comedy is based on criticising and, consequently, offending ways, beliefs and people’s actions, but it is something we can learn from and become aware of social problems, as well. Nevertheless, it might be said that there is always a time when freedom of expression offends other rights, such as the right to privacy, the right to be respected and so on; they argue that we don’t need to offend in order to express our opinion.

To conclude, I believe as Salman Rushdie does, that freedom to offend is a price worth paying for the freedom of expression to exist. It is a basic need so that a person finds their place in society; it must have no limits in order to prevent us from other harm. Martin Luther King expressed his opinions and dreams, though they might have offended some, they saved an entire community’s life and pride.