Please let your answers be unlimited as you like.
2006-09-06 17:21:35 · 16 answers · asked by Evelyn B 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Civic Participation
I can't think of anything more irresponsible and disastrous for the nation than a truly "unlimited" free speech. If speech is totally non-regulatable I can do all of the following:
slander you with impunity.
invade your privacy.
urge people to immediate acts of violence.
cause unlimited panic (yelling "fire" in a crowded theater).
Oh my, the list goes on and on. Freedom of speech is a good; but speech rights unbalanced against the needs of society is a recipe for disaster. We need to be balanced and proportionate in all things.
2006-09-07 01:53:45 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Free speech is limited.
The Supreme Court illustrated the concept by indicating that yelling "FIRE" in a crowded theater if not protected under the free speech clause of the First Amendment. There are other cases as well including, passing classified information to foreign agents, slander, and false advertising to name a few.
2006-09-06 17:31:28 · answer #2 · answered by gimpalomg 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Unfortunately, it is unlimited. I get tired of the free speech on here from liberals but they have a constitutional right to blah, blah, blah.
I wish the media would stop giving our security information to our enemy. Rather actually told where troops were & they got bombed. Does he deserve freedom of speech?
2006-09-06 17:30:28 · answer #3 · answered by Wolfpacker 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I feel a little like a broken record here, but yes, it should be unlimited as long as it does not infringe upon the rights of others. All of the rights we have are conditional upon that caveat. Some have suggested they have the right to tell people where you live, etc., but that violates your right to privacy. It's a built-in protection.
2006-09-07 07:32:00 · answer #4 · answered by Speedo Inspector 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Evelyn B, my dear young lady, you know the answer to that without asking: Lets suppose that under freedom of speech someone were to broadcast the "fact" that you have a tendency to sleep naked, are single, leave your door unlocked and at the end add your home address....Covered under 'free of speech?"
Oh, it's OK if it were political by branding you a Conservative or liberal?
2006-09-06 23:25:27 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
If no controls existed, than that one answer would reproduce like fly on ton of horse manure. Political speech should be unlimited.
2006-09-06 17:44:27 · answer #6 · answered by Mister2-15-2 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes it should be. Unfortunately, in most places other than the United States it is not unlimited.
2006-09-06 17:29:43 · answer #7 · answered by scubadiver50704 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The traditional limit on free speech in the U.S. has been yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater when there was no fire. The resulting chaos would mean loss of life and limb, so this is not protected by free speech.
2006-09-06 17:26:26 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yup.
Because as soon as you start to limit free speech you are giving certain parties special treatment.
For example if you delcare hate speech against Jews to be a crime, then anybody who has a bone to pick with the Jews gets locked up, but Jews can badmouth anybody they want.
2006-09-06 17:27:21 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
fuuuuuuuuuck no! there is such a thing of people talking too much! I think they should put a 15 minute limit per day on free speech.
2006-09-06 17:23:29 · answer #10 · answered by xxxcariooo 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋