Should freedom of speech be absolute?

Question

Should there ever be a reason why the freedom of speech should not be exercised? Not counting racial slurs.

Answer 1

It should be absolute, I even want to hear the ugly stuff so I know just who that person is so I can keep away from them

Answer 2

Okay, you say not counting racial slurs, but why that exception if there are no others? There are reasons for freedom of speech not to be exercised that are much better than those against racial slurs. You shouldn't exercise your freedom of speech if doing so will get people killed-- the classic example of yelling "Fire!" in a crowded movie theatre when there is no fire.

Answer 3

A person's freedom should end at the point it begins to infringe on another's freedom. The example of yelling fire in a crowded theater was used to describe a limit. Racial slurs should be protected...how else would I know who not to associate with.

Answer 4

Read the Book, " Steal this Book" By Abbie Hoffman, on the opening pages one of the companies that refused to print the book, out of I think 20 something were mentioned, they stated " this book will end freedom of speech" but it was still published!!! and a great book that only he dared to write, Pick it up its good easy reading with a twist of humor.
I dont think i agree with limitations. They now arrest people for non-violent protest, thats a violation of rights.
Peace.

Answer 5

No, there are limits. The classic case is yelling fireplace in a crowded action picture theater once you're totally conscious there is not any fireplace. this isn't secure by technique of freedom of speech. different examples are slander and libel, the position your verbal or written speech is defamatory. To defame someone is to make fake or unjustified statements that injure the recognition of yet another human being. maximum libel circumstances are heard in civil court. yet there are jurisdictions, which includes in Nevada, the position there's a criminal style of libel. Hate speech is really secure by technique of the US structure as freedom of speech, yet in circumstances the position the threat of violence is coming near near, or using hate speech might want to correctly be criminal no matter if it truly is desirous to incite the violence. yet when so, it is truly inciting violence it really is the unlawful component, no longer the speech itself. If hate speech creates an ecosystem the position the rights of yet another are abridged, which includes in the place of work, the organization or inspite of get at the same time tolerates the dislike speech might want to be got here across to be in violation of the civil rights act or different regulations that limit antagonistic place of work circumstances. right here it is the organization held to blame for tolerating the speech, no longer the man uttering the speech except they're one interior the same individual.

Answer 6

well, according to some people (and I won't mention any names) the answer is yes......I, on the other hand, believe that people should think twice before exercising that right. Sometimes things you can say or write, do more harm than the deed that is written or talked about and it's sometimes what you don't say that matters. It's a matter of discretion which some people have forgotten exists.

Answer 7

Freedom of Speech should be exercised. It is in our constitution.

Answer 8

Yes

Answer 9

ABSOLUTELY NOT!!! SPEECH SHOULD BE ABSOLUTELY FREE! (yes including racial slurs- if people want to be @$$holes, let them- it just makes them look as stupid as they are)

Answer 10

Freedom of speech allows you to speak your opinion. I does not allow you to tell lies.