 Restricting speech inevitably prevents ascertainment and publication of true facts and accurate judgments – it entails an unwarranted " assumption of infallibility " on the part of the government . As argued by John Stuart Mill and analysed by Eric <unk> , allowing freedom of speech ensures that the government 's policies are right and appropriate to legislate ; even the possibility of false speech should not prevent genuine expression of true beliefs . Nevertheless , since inflammatory speech that may provoke disorder must be prevented , a government should be entitled to prioritize public order considerations over permitting individuals to express their personal opinions . Balancing the risk of damage and disorder against long @-@ term benefits of uninhibited debate is imperative . 
