When discussing the relationship between freedom of expression and social stability, it must first be emphasized that the formulation of any social policy should be based on respect for human rights, laws and international norms. As a basic human right, freedom of expression is protected in the constitutions of most countries and international conventions (such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights). However, historical and practical cases have shown that under certain special circumstances (such as threats to national security, incitement to violence, or hate speech), society may restrict speech through legal procedures. However, this restriction must comply with the following principles： 1. **Principles of legal clarity and proportionality** -Any restrictions need to be formulated through democratic procedures with a clear legal basis to ensure that the scope of restrictions is strictly limited to acts that directly endanger public safety (such as inciting terrorism, spreading false information, causing social panic, etc.), rather than generalizing and suppressing criticism or dissent. -It is necessary to prove the necessity between the means of restriction and the goal of protection, and choose the method with the least infringement of rights. 2. **Public communication and transparency** -The government needs to explain the nature of specific threats to the public through public data (such as statistics on violent incidents caused by false information) and independent research, rather than resorting to the vague concept of “stability”. -Establish multi-party participatory supervision mechanisms (such as legislatures, judicial review, and civic groups) to prevent abuse of power. 3. **Education and social consensus building** -Help the public identify harmful information through media literacy education, rather than relying solely on control. -Encourage public discussion so that society can spontaneously form resistance to extreme speech, rather than relying on coercive means alone. 4. **International experience and lessons learned** -You can refer to the regulation of hate speech in the German "Internet Enforcement Law", or the definition of platform responsibilities in the EU "Digital Services Act". These cases show that the law needs to accurately target specific harmful behaviors. -At the same time, we need to be wary of negative cases of suppressing dissent in the name of “stability” (such as excessive censorship in some authoritarian countries). Such practices may intensify social contradictions in the long run. **Risks worth being vigilant about**： - History shows that the lack of strictly restricted speech control can easily become a tool for abuse of power, and on the contrary, it erodes the foundation of social stability. -Excessive restrictions may inhibit social innovation and problem feedback mechanisms, mask deep contradictions (such as the gap between rich and poor, corruption), and lead to more serious systemic risks. **Conclusion**： The maintenance of social stability should be achieved through the construction of long-term systems such as strengthening the rule of law, promoting fairness, and guaranteeing citizen participation, rather than simply relying on speech control. If restrictions are indeed needed, the principles of legality, necessity, and transparency must be followed, and the protection of citizens' rights must always be placed at the core.