Does "Free Speech" have limitations?

Question

...and if so, what do you think they are?

Answer 1

If it didn't, anything could be made from it making nothing illegal and destroying law itself.

For example:

Many people believe that the freedom of speech includes the freedom to express yourself, and in a sense it does. You have the freedom to express yourself in the manner of Speech, words, and writing, not by what you watch, buy, wear, do, experience, feel, etc. If it included those terms and many others that have been instituted by federal courts across the nation, then if it was my desire to express myself through the avenue of murder what would make that wrong? Laws? Has not the Constitution overrid many laws?

Also, let's say I wanted to express myself by purchasing full automatic weapons with armor piercing rounds. What would make that wrong? I want to express myself by shooting guns, and only guns that are full atuomatic and ultra-high velocity.

The list could go on and on, but last example. What if I wanted to express myself by killing myself? And yet we try to prevent suicides. But I want to express myself and the freedom of speech says that I can. No! that is ludicrous.

The freedom of speech does not give you the right to express yourself in any way other than speech or words. It has limitations. The Constitution was not written to say what the government and people couldn't do, but what they could. And we can express ourselves, according to the freedom of speech, through speech and words. The other freedoms are the same way. If we do not limit them somewhere, anything is possible.

We must go back and look at the founding fathers had in mind when they wrote the Constinution. It is not to be interreprated in any other way other than that.

Answer 2

Thought is conditioned and hence, thought is limited. So speech is inherently limited. Within that sphere however, I don't think free speech should have any forced limitations. If avoiding offending someone is ones main criteria, its close to impossible. No matter what is said, someone is going to be offended. Having said that, these are few things I believe that need to be watched for-

1. While expressing an opinion, care should be taken not to sound like one is stating fact.

2. While stating fact, one needs to be aware that facts can have multiple interpretations.

3. Most importantly, free speech requires an open-minded attitude that is willing to accept its own errors and limitations.

Answer 3

Yes, if your speech causes harm to the public then authorities may stop you. Its why organizations like the KKK can have the freedom to assemble and speak their minds, but they can only assemble given the permission by the local city hall. They can only go within the boundaries they are given. So yes, that would be a limitation to freedom of speech.

Answer 4

Lying about things that impact others lives in the media is a limit to freedom of speech. For example, it is illegal and immoral for TV weathermen to lie about the weather. It's like, "Today, the doppler radar has detected a category 5 hurricane headed this way...". Obviously, when a giant mob hurt each other trying to escape, saying "April Fools! won't cut it."

Answer 5

You can't incite people to riot or cause a general panic. For instance, you can't shout "Fire!" in a crowded theater. Most free speech controversies rest on the interpretation of "content" and its usefulness relative to the speaker's goals. Controversies also arise when "free speech" impinges upon another fundamental right. For instance, the KKK might choose to burn a cross, which is considered "free speech," but they don't have the right to burn a cross on YOUR property--at that point your property rights trump their right to free expression. Finally, questions about what constitutes "speech" cause controversies. For instance, is donating money to a political campaign "speech," per se? Or is a non-verbal action like burning a draft card, bra, or flag "speech?" It depends on who is serving on the Supreme Court when these controversies ripen.

Answer 6

The constitutional term that is used in deciding whether or not speech is protected is whether the speech constitutes a "clear and present danger."

Answer 7

There is no such thing as free speech. Look at how many people get charges for slander.... isn't what you say free speech.

Answer 8

Yes

Answer 9

Libel is not free speech.

Answer 10

limitations? yes:the patriot act