The argument concludes that Freedom of expression is the only basis for the survival and growth of a society. It also states that freedom of expression is the only way to introduce new ideas which, in the long run, would lead to social growth.
The stated argument has three underlying assumptions. First, Social growth would not be possible without new ideas. However, new ideas or Innovation is not the only vehicle which drives social growth. Social growth also depends on the economic aspects like the access to basic facilities. Moreover, when the basic needs of the people cannot be fulfilled, even if they come up with new ideas, they would not be in a position to experiment with and implement them as they have more compelling needs to take care of.
Another assumption that seems a bit out of place is that only freedom of expression would lead to generation of new ideas.
For the moment, lets assume that the society is economically stable, and is given complete freedom of expression so that they can come up with more and more new ideas. However, would this freedom guarantee lots of new ideas? What if the general level of education among the people is very low. Would they be able to generate new ideas which would lead to social upliftment?
I don't say that is not possible at all. However lets look at the revolutions of the past. We can get dozens of examples from the Indian, Russian, French revolutions that the change in the social order was triggered because of the new ideas that the revolution leaders came up with. That, inspite of the censorship on the freedom of speech and expression.
Thirdly, it is argued that removing all limits on freedom of expression would lead to social growth. This,