Cambridge Law Test: Who benefits from freedom of speech? Who loses?

NB: There is obviously no correct answer to these sorts of questions; they are all couched in such a way as to allow for discussion and argument beyond what appears at face value. Hence, it's critical for a successful answer to dissect the question carefully, attack its underlying assumptions, and while drive towards a clear, reasoned conclusion (whatever direction that might take). The following paragraph demonstrates this more cerebral approach by engaging with the question on its own terms initially, but ultimately concluding that the question itself is flawed. Numerous different directions of argument could flow from the basic position it sets out.Who benefits and who loses from freedom of speech might seem obvious; those who exercise their freedom of speech must be the "winners", and those who might suffer because that speech is detrimental to them must be the "losers". If nobody suffers from freedom of speech, then nobody loses and there is only a benefit. The whole issue of freedom of speech then becomes a simple utilitarian balancing exercise between the benefits of absolute freedom of expression and the detriment caused by unconstrained, potentially hateful and inflammatory, speech. Certainly, this classically libertarian outlook has considerable merit, and the particular societal and social context will serve to help draw the balancing line precisely. However, as important as it is, this obvious answer also belies a broader issue. Namely, the individual centric language of "benefit" and "loss" is inapt in this context. Really, who wins and loses will be dependent on the content of the speech and who it is directed to; those people who benefit from freedom of speech may later, or even simultaneously, suffer a detriment from another person's freedom of speech. To answer difficult questions about freedom of speech appropriately, we ought not to ask whether the balance of winners and losers is set properly, but rather what shape we want society as a whole to take on. That vision -- encompassing the united, rather than adversarial interests of all people -- can then inform decisions about what the limits on freedom of speech should be.