Do you think the right of freedom of speech can be taken too far?

Question

For example, when your freedom infringes upon the rights of others. Or do you believe that the First Amendment is absolute and not to be questioned?

Answer 1

my rights end where yours begin. i believe that there is no law that should be universally absolute... the beauty of rules to me is that they can be interpreted in different ways to fit different circumstances. there ought to be no universal 'right' that allows me to infringe upon YOUR right to be left alone.

or to look at it a little differently, just because i legally have the right to do something, does that mean that i should exercise that right if it infringes on yours? of course not... at least that's my view. question everything.

Answer 2

The freedom of speech has not only taken to far but actually used as a weapon,also the freedom of the press is being taken to new heights by most newspapers,they can informed enemies of this country whatever they want and get away with it,something a normal citizen can not do

Answer 3

I think you can not have rights without responsibilities. For example freedom of speech does not protect hate speech when its only purpose is to incite violence, but it does protect that speech in print form. The distinction is that if it is in a book you choose whether to seek out that material, whereas someone shouting on a street corner may disturb the peace. Our laws generally follow this logic. Flag burning as a political statement is protected so far, but if you were to use it to intimidate somebody then you would be breaking the law. This goes for all our individual rights. Yes, you have the right to privacy, but not when you invoke that right as a screen for crimes. They are only rights when the correlated responsibilities to ensure general peace, safety, and welfare are in place.

Answer 4

Of course it can be taken too far. The Supreme Court realized this in their rulings - the "Fire!" in a crowded theater aspect. Of course, slander and libel are protected against as well.

Although I loathe hate speech and bigoted, discriminatory homophobia, and the violence and hatred it encourages, I know that these misguided people have the right to voice their opinion, even though it can cause harm to others. I like to think that most people can spot ignorance and bigotry when they hear it.

Answer 5

Freedom of speech is a suitable and could have not any obstacles or regulations. Any questions I examine that i understand incorporate only pronounced to make concern, I dont concern interpreting. Any solutions I examine to a question that are offensive, ignorant, etc- I only ignore approximately in case you opt to freely take part in YAHOO solutions or the different side of yank custom, then you definately could desire to publish with the issues you dont inevitably consider, even no be counted if it is offensive. If it bothers you that plenty, you may pick to no longer participate. it is one among my beefs with american custom atm. everyone and everyone if offeneded with the aid of some thing and expects everyone else to guard it. as an occasion human beings get disillusioned over specific television exhibits . . nicely ya understand what? in case you dont like .do no longer watch it. specific commercials, songs, statues, flags, video clips, books, etc . . can and could offend somebody . .its component to existence. I coudl circulate on and on, yet i've got laready hijacked your question adequate 8)

Answer 6

Free speech is absolute, and if limited it is no longer a right but something which is permissible, however "permissible" requires that someone permits us to do so, rights are not given and taken by another they are inalienable to us as humans. We cannot delegate to another a right which we don't have and we don't have the right to limit ones speech, so how can we delegate that to a representative or any other abstraction.

Answer 7

the 1st amendment is absolute and has NO boundaries. the constitution says i can spout love OR hate. I can promote prostitution or stand up against it. if the 1st amendment was even under CONSIDERATION to be in ANY way tweaked or modified I would HOPE that EVERYONE in this country would have the courage to not just stand up and say this is wrong but to take true ACTION and ensure that that right stays as such forEVER.

Answer 8

It's a very, very rare case when speech should be controlled. For example, it's okay to prevent someone from screaming "Fire" in a crowded theater. That's about it, though.

Slander and libel, as well, as long as it can be proved that it was knowingly a lie, and was specifically done to hurt the other people. It shouldn't be legal for Presidential Candidate X to say Candidate Y killed someone in 1974, for example, if you can prove that they know they didn't.

Answer 9

I think if what you are saying can cause physical harm to another it is wrong. I believe in the first amendment but it was a totally different time when it was written. Has our society changed so much that it needs to be updated? That I don't know.

Answer 10

I think free speech is often denied to the people for fear of lawsuits being arrested ect. The only people who seem to have a say in Webster County Mo are the elected officials. This is called a 1983 violation of civil rights, however no one does anything to enforce it so why do we have it?