Is freedom a disadvantage?

The suppression of our freedom of speech violates our human rights, in which it may be considered harmful or sensitive as determined by the government and sets a perceptible limit to our imaginations and thoughts. The lack of substantial information and the suppression of the freedom of speech make people more narrowly minded and it seems like people, especially the young ones living in countries regulated by a strict government haven’t gotten the enthusiasm, the willingness of acquiring change and creativity. The intention of preventing ”inappropriate objectives”  isn’t sustainable for a longer time span, it just doesn’t work. People learn from mistakes and it’s apparent that the origin of successful accomplishments always initiates from failed attempts. So, humanity can’t just "pretend" it’s living at a utopian society possessing highly desirable or near perfect qualities in order to achieve its required fulfillment.

Source

 However, my theories of a free society, unregulated by censorship doesn’t really apply in every context and looking at another perspective, so it does have some disadvantages. So basically, a slight dilemma will occur. Looking at a map of our world, western developed countries (mostly located within the Occident) are the freest and there is a very obvious reason. First of all, these countries are economically and socially sustainable with a smaller population enjoying better living standards and personal freedom. Since the ”Western” developed countries are more undemanding maintaining order and control, freedom spontaneously is achieved without great efforts and difficulties. It’s easier to the 9 million ”affluent” Swedes to enjoy social welfare, press freedom, universal suffrage than the 1.4 billion Chinese ”enjoying” huge inequalities. The freedom of press ”westerners” require would be disastrous in China and gradually turn the more ”structural” society into a mess of 1.4 billion people. In order to establish freedom, social order and structure is a necessity. As a matter of fact, dictatorship, censorship and restrictions actually have their advantages from another point of view.

Second of all, different countries have different cultural and historical values. Western societies are usually perceived as freer since their as wall are more experienced with freedom. It was in the West, mankind became introduced to industrialization and capitalism which gradually enhanced peoples’ livelihood, it was in the West, free and democratic governments were established. In addition Western European countries also colonized a sizable portion of the world. The reason  Western freedom and liberalism hasn’t worked as well in Africa, the Middle East, Southeast Asia etc. is partly due to colonialism/imperialism, which has enriched Western countries and vice versa. People living in these, ” post-colonial” countries weren’t introduced to ”Western freedom” as early as they were under strict and oppressive control of their colonial powers. After gaining independence, these countries were going through lots of suffering, such as war so the concepts of peace and freedom hasn’t really been established that well. If the people are malnutritious and poor, they wouldn’t even care about freedom of speech or universal suffrage, concept a rising middle class would require. So, in conclusion, different amount of freedom appropriates to different kinds of societies.

Source
The clash of civilizations according to the political scientist Samuel P. Huntington

Despite my wish of every country becoming free and democratic societies achieving such is quite inevitable and more of an ideal but still believe that every country, every society possess the potential of becoming liberal and affluent, granting a freedom of the press and livelihood to their people. In a longer timespans, dictatorships and oppressive regimes are not sustainable, depending on whether the economic or social circumstances but when countries get developed on globalize, liberalizing different aspects of the society is perceived as an indispensability. Just look at it in another perspective, when children grow, they mature and the responsibility of their parents diminishes following the years. Of course, even if your child is an adult you still have the obligation of having control over or care for him/her and it’s the exact same attribute as of our society. When poor agricultural countries, controlled by restrictive regimes prosper, they also mature, principal elements of freedom increases, people get more reliant etc. Once these countries perhaps become developed economies and flourishes into full fledged democracies. Some countries, like China has not reached an unrestricted free democratic society since it still has lot to achieve and others, such as South Korea have already accomplished that.

Source
It's easily seen that western countries, with a few exceptions all have greater
press freedom shown in this map 

We Humans are social beings, we possess our own contemplations and responsibilities, not subjects to neither foreign domination nor despotic government or conflicts. We are able to express ourself and negotiate with others freely in order to maintain stability, everybody have different opinions and everybody’s voices should be heard. Restrictive control only eradicates our capabilities! Nevertheless, to suit our needs, I eventually believe that humanity will achieve its ”required”