Freedom of Speech: An analysis of the evidentiary tensions
MENARA ASPEN ADVISORY LTD - AUTHORED WORK - NOT FOR REPRODUCTION OR DISTRIBUTION
Author Chiebuniem Okwuosa
Date 25th September 2025
“Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me.” It’s baffling that a blatantly incorrect phrase could become so widely known. The evidence against this doesn’t need to be read in a book or concluded by a peer-reviewed scientific study. We’d have to look no further than our very own memories. Almost every person has memories of words that cut us deep, arguments and insults that we will never forget. Offensive words can have a variety of negative effects, depending on the person. Some may feel mild discomfort. For others who are experiencing a mental health crisis, harsh words may be the straw that breaks the camel’s back, and they could slip deeper into mental health issues as a result. So perhaps it might be sensible to always refrain from saying anything offensive, since it could, unknowingly cause irreparable damage to a person’s self-esteem or mental health?
However, that train of thought is swerving far into one extreme situation, and this question requires delving into diverse situations to find the real answer. The rebuttal to that proposal is this: what is considered offensive? If you were to ask 100 different people, you’d likely get 100 different answers. There are some who wouldn’t falter at the harshest of insults, and others who would feel stung when given gentle constructive criticism. Of course, there are some things that are almost universally considered disrespectful, for example, using slurs. But everyday conversations are full of grey areas, the possibility of words being miscommunicated or misunderstood. Therefore, the proposal can’t be fully adhered to, since that would require everyone to be mind readers. We would need to know the details of every trauma that might cause obscure sore points that are out of the question for discussion. Considering only what it means to be offensive and the effects of the hurtful words is certainly not enough to answer the question.
This crucial third dimension to be considered is the purpose of offensive words. If the purpose of the words is to help the person, then this changes everything. This brings us back to the point mentioned earlier. Some people are sensitive and feel offended upon hearing constructive criticism. Does this mean that we should all refrain from giving it to others? How would we grow and develop if not for it? The person may become angry and ruminate, but upon further reflection they would see the truth (assuming the criticism was sound). Then they would alter that aspect of themselves and move on as an improved person. How would the person better themselves if they were left in the confines of their limited self perception out of fear of causing offence? It may not be comfortable, but meaningful growth rarely is.
This being said, we can’t completely disregard the possibility of harm in our attempt to be helpful to other people. Once again, drawing from a prior example, some people have severe mental health issues and could even be battling suicidal thoughts. If you know that the person is seriously struggling and extremely sensitive, you may not have the right to say anything that could hurt or offend them, even in good faith, since this could cause great distress.
We can’t consider one factor without taking into account the others. The conclusion is clear. The possibility of hurt, and the extent of it must be carefully weighed against the purpose of the offensive words. If the aim is to cause harm, the person has no right to speak. If the aim is to help, the person must still consider whether the hurt would outweigh the help so heavily that it would be better to not say anything at all.
How should we understand freedom of expression in light of the constraints imposed by article 10(2) – as a lived right or an ideological construct?
by Chiebuniem Okwuosa
MENARA ASPEN ADVISORY LTD - AUTHORED WORK - NOT FOR REPRODUCTION OR DISTRIBUTION
