Should there be any abridgments to free speech?

Question

Should there be any abridgments to free speech? Slander, hate speech, and inciting violence are currently not protected... should they be? Why or why not? I'm looking for well-thought out descriptive answers. No, this isn't for homework.

Answer 1

I believe in absolute free speech, with reasonable consequences. Shout fire in a movie theater, and you should receive reasonable punishment.

Take flag-burning, a favorite topic of spineless politicians -who come out firmly in favor of the flag. What is the real consequence of burning a flag? Most people get righteously angry. But if they thought it through, they would realize that by the simple act of flag burning, the flag burner has inspired more patriotism in observers than a stupid politician (or anyone else) pontificating on a podium. A piece of cloth has been burned, yet the Republic survives. Sometimes, the government REALLY DOES do something stupid, and perhaps burning a flag is the only way a concerned citizen can express outrage - especially if they are not well-connected to the halls of power.

The freedom of speech and expression is the MOST IMPORTANT freedom we possess. If a country, as opposed to a mere government, cannot survive words and gestures, perhaps it is inherently too weak or corrupt to survive.

I may not like what some people have to say, but it rarely is fatal to listen to another point of view. Sometimes, we are not as smart as we think we are.

Long live the first amendment.

Answer 2

I don't believe there should be abridgments to speech, but I also believe that there should be real consequences. If you say something that results in harm, people should be willing to accept the punishment FOR THE HARM, but not for the speech. People should be willing to stand by their words, not hide behind them (or hide behind the First Amendment).

Too many people want to be able to speak their minds without facing consequences. Our founding fathers knew they were putting their lives and honor on the line.

Today, people aren't willing to face responsibility for anything. For that reason, I believe that abridgments ARE necessary. A lack of individual honor demands that society place restrictions. This is a sad but true consequence of abuse of freedom.

I know my answer is lacking substance, but I hope I can at least deliver the gist of my thoughts. Excellent question.

Answer 3

the the main proper option to loose speech particularly is composed of speech that others do no longer evaluate, in any different case there may well be no might desire to guarantee it indoors the type. Hate speech is purely one situation that somebody else would not decide directly to take heed to. multiple speech is surely misinterpreted as hate speech. If I say i'm getting annoying flying on a matching plane as a team of Muslims, that would choose to be better like concern speech, would not it? anybody is in basic terms too oversensitive. If somebody says some situation approximately me that i do in comparison to, I in basic terms forget approximately approximately it.

Answer 4

When a govt can legally harass you for criticism.Or they deny freedom of expression to the print and electronic media, That country is not democratic,regardless of the grandiose speeches to the contrary.If only the govt can decide what is newsworthy Then you may as well read comics and watch cartoons.Or even better see your travel agent

Answer 5

this is a loaded question, for once you limit speech via coercion in any manner it is no longer free; hence the questions only answer can be no. however if you mean is it right to limit speech, then absolutely not.