CSS Forums - Free speech should have limitations.

[QUOTE=Nisar Ali;562444]I. Introduction
"Freedom of speech is not absolute. It has and should have certain limitations."
II. Body
1. Free speech: meaning
2. West: the hypocritical champion of free speech:
a. Western use of free speech against Islam
b. Use of free speech in West itself
3. Free speech: a relative concept
4. Harmful impacts of absolute freedom of speech
5. Reasons for which free speech should be circumscribed:
a. Public order
b. Peaceful coexistence
c. Right to privacy
6. Cases in which free speech is no where tolerated:
a. State secrets
b. Intelligence information
c. Private life
7. Difference between free speech and abusive speech
8. Freedom of speech in view of basic human rights
III. Conclusion
"Absolute freedom of speech is a double-edged sword. It is a modern right. It should not be used to express old prejudices".[/QUOTE]

Honestly, this is a very suitable and appealing outline and it details out a majority of the relevant concepts. And for that reason, I should say that it must get the minimum prescribed marks.

However, please consider the following points as they might strengthen the format and argumentative stance of your written work.

Firstly, the outline does incorporate most of the crucial factors but I fancy it is sort of haphazard as the reader, in adjacent paragraphs, is followed up with a piece of information that is not related to the previous points. Hence, the flow of information is not that steady. For example, the difference between free and abusive speech should have been explained and elucidated in the initial portion of the essay. This is the part where you should be concentrating on the exposition of the topic and its contents. As a result, all of your follow up comments will surely be better positioned afterwards.

Secondly, the heading relating to the western hypocrisy is placed separately where it should have been a part of the 5th and 6th points. Moreover, the outline seems superb unless you take a look at this point which seems to be forcefully injected in the text, just for the sake of making an opinion. You should discuss this aspect in the sub headings of 5th and 6th part.

If I were to reformulate your outline, I would have chosen the following sequence.

[COLOR="Blue"][B][I][U]1: Introduction [/U][/I][/B][/COLOR]
[COLOR="Blue"][B][I][U]2: Free Speech: Meaning [/U][/I][/B][/COLOR]
[B]2a: Notion of Absolute vs Relative Free Speech
2b: Free Speech from a legal perspective (As a basic human right)
2c: Free Speech Vs Abusive Speech
2d: Notion of complete Vs Partial Freedom of Speech (International Vs National Level comparison, superseding/Dominance of National laws to International laws)
2e: Interpretation of the notion of Free speech: West Vs East (Social Differences and Composition of Society) [/B]
[COLOR="Blue"][B][I][U]3: Why freedom of speech should be limited[/U][/I][/B][/COLOR]
[B]3a: Public Order Vis a Vis Public Sentiments
3b: Diplomatic Relations and Peaceful Coexistence
3c: Right of individuals for Privacy
3d: Intelligence Sharing and Classified Information
3e: Social and Political Harmony
3f: Ethical Boundaries and Limits [/B]
[COLOR="Blue"][B][I][U]4: Conclusion [/U][/I][/B][/COLOR]

Please not that I have tried my best to explain the underlying concepts first before moving forward to the arguments. Moreover, I have also tried to place the information in such a sequence where the reader gets a clear sense of transition from one para to the next. This is my view and you might think differently.

It is up to you how you'd prefer to link the points of 2nd portion to the sub headings (arguments) of the 3rd one, this ability of yours will surely make a huge difference in the final marks.