Human Rights: What exactly does "freedom of expression" achieve, any way?

Freedom of expression permits us to let the world know about our ideas on any subject by law ! And also gives us the right to object those ideas.. writers put their thoughts on paper or blog for the world to read and know it forever.. On a larger scale, the debate and arguments that leads brings betterment in society.. here, this right directly relate to have no fear in expressing yourself.. saying and writing what you want..in india where the largest democracy prevails, we find it hard to implement freedom of speech and expression as it may hurt religious sentiment of the masses..

It's a pity that freedom of expression has achieved very little. What said is, I think, not completely right. First of all, the fact is that our newspapers, websites, TVs, etc, own the power. As a common person, it's very hard to be heard. Under this kind of circumstances I can hardly think freedom of expression effective. You are just calling, but no one knows. Is that really what we want? Secondly, not many people know exactly what is "freedom of expression". Is it right if I call African Americans "black"? Some think it OK, while others may not. Is it right to pay respect to some people's "traditional culture", e.g. lower position for women, or believe that we should speak for the people whom are thought not to be treated equally? What is the standard? It's hard to decide what is harmful or not. Thirdly, poverty. What is "individual"? People are weak and we need a richer, stronger, safer place where we can independently finish our business. Only in a place like that can we understand the importance of individualism. But in many countries, including Muslims' and communists', people are poor. They are not individuals because they are not able to be. It's the same with freedom of expression. I have to admit that it's helped us get something. Women got the right to vote, to work, to marry as they want. Labours enjoy more welfare and children can go to school. Those rights were got by people's calling, supported by the freedom of expression. But that's not enough.

I think we can get a general idea by looking at what we lose when we do not have the freedom of expression : 1.Lack of freedom of expression curtails Scientific progress : There have been multiple  instances where ideas /theories that could have advanced science were suppressed because they challenged the prevailing misconceptions of the time : e.g. Galileo Galilee Galileo was imprisoned  because found "vehemently suspect of heresy", namely of having held the opinions  that the Sun lies motionless at the center of the universe, that the  Earth is not at its center and moves, and that one may hold and defend  an opinion as probable after it has been declared contrary to Holy  Scripture. Denying freedom to express curtails scientists from their pursuit of advancing human knowledge, and in many cases discourages them from following certain lines of inquiry by banning the offending material from publication. mostly the threat of imprisonment is a strong deterrent. similar scenarios  Charles Darwin's evolutionary theory 2. Lack of Freedom of Expression invariably results in suppression of dissent Lack of freedom of expression leads governments to enforce ban on dissenting views and heavy censoring of the media. Based on the level and type of censoring this has lot of negative consequence 1. Lack of free press 2. Dissenters get frustrated and take up violent means to express their message e.g. Syria , Egypt and other middle east countries currently experiencing revolution. 3. Lack of freedom of Expression makes governments unstable , corrupt Freedom of expression also means a person can voice his opinion whether a government is functioning efficiently , fairly and without corruption. this ideally functions as a feedback loop and forces governments to put checks and balances to ensure proper functioning of the government. Remove this feedback loop (say government says you cannot criticize its policies or efficiency ) and over time you will have a dysfunctional government (a strong proponent of this idea is Nobel laureate Dr Amartya Sen [2]) References : 1.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei 2.http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/01/arts/does-democracy-avert-famine.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm

Democracy, amongst the other things. In short,  without freedom of speech and freedom of information, there would not be free press. People would not be informed about government'activities and would not be able to vote properly, as they would have no grounds to choose a party over another one. Freedom of speech is a key element of the right to democratic governance.

As long as freedom of speech exists, any other right that is threatened or has been encroached on can be defended, or even recovered.  This cannot be said of any other right. So we not only enshrine free speech as the highest right, but establish a wide margin around it that cannot be encroached on by law or government, even when the speech in question seems foolish or even hateful.   There is literally nothing more important in a free society.