What is your opinion on how much control the government should have over free speech?

Question

In my social studies class we are discussing "how much control should the government have over limiting our right to freedom of speech, what limits should be set?"
i was just wondering what other people's opinion on this were? do you think the government should have the power to censor the media or ban certain things from being said? Or do you think society would benefit from having books and various other things, even what people are allowed to say, being banned just because a few people find it offensive?

anyways i was just curious as to what other people thought. i hope i explained my question well enough.

Answer 1

When limits are put on freedom it loses it's meaning. It isn't free anymore. We should be aware of other's feelings when we speak, this is just plain common sense.
The government though, has too much control over us anyway. For a free country we hold the record on prisons, we even beat out the worst of dictatorships for prisons and the percentage of the population that is in there.
If I remember correctly the figure is something like 25 or 30 percent of our population is in prison for either political or legal reasons.
Ask your teacher why?

Answer 2

The press should be able to say whatever they want. But with that being said, there should be consequences if they are irresponsible. What the New York Times has done recently, on more than one occasion, is seditious if not downright treasonous. And they should be held responsible.

Too many media types hide behind the first ammendment.

Also, the McCain-Feingold campaign reform act should be repealed. It is inneffective at controlling the money being spent in campaigns and is in violation of the average Americans right to free speech. Limiting the voice of anyone 90 days before an election is not good.

Answer 3

Very little the U.S. Constitution says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." The main if not the only exception is where immanent physical harm can come of it like yelling fire in a crowded theater.

Answer 4

It depends on what is being censored, why it is being censored and the situation at the time...
For example, If religious folks want pornography taken off of the internet then that is unacceptable censorship....The religious folks don't have to look at it and it is not hurting them..
For example, If some liberal dems want to publish the Bush plans on listening to terrorist phone calls or intercepting their bank transfers, then government censoring the news and preventing them from divulging this information during a time of war...
There were lots of examples of censorship during WW1 & WW2
which were for the national good and as both Dems & Repubs of the time were more concerned about the nations well being than their own re-election , power and lining their pockets, there was little arguement about what censorship was appropriate and what was not.....Unlike the Liberal Dems of today...

Answer 5

There should be absolutely NO government control on what people can and can't say. Free Speech is a right that should be protected by us. If the government controls what is "obscene", then who decides that? What is obscene to you might not be obscene to me, and what is obscene to me might not be for someone else.

Read the book 1984 by George Orwell. You will see in that book what happens if the government has too much control over what we say, do and how we live.

Answer 6

if any burning on our body , even the impression of burning injury can be eradicated. but spelled out from tongue always in mind still death. So when making allegations, or at the time of angry, we our self should have limit to freedom of speech.
The Society should be given the measurement and control over it . not the government.

Answer 7

... In my opinion, free speech is free speech. Governments should not regulate what they consider free speech. For instance, there sems to be no problem with people saying bad things about the english, dutch germans etc... but God help us if a bad word is uttered about Blacks or Jews.... this does not seem fair. It's not that I have anything bad to say.. but if I did, especially if it was in a joking matter or I were drunk.. eg: Mel Gbson.. then I think we are taking this whole free speech controversy out of context. I would far rather see some sort of gun control instead of speech control... Words can never hurt you unless you let them.

Answer 8

When it becomes dangerous and harmful to others the government needs to step in. I'm afraid it's too late for that. The rights for freedom of speech these days are one sided. Say the word "Budah" and it's okay ....say the name "Jesus" and all of a sudden they get upset. I'm patriotic yes but The Constitution of the United states of America is being abused.

Answer 9

In the near future, our government will have control over much more than free speech...

Answer 10

i'm sufficiently previous to recollect talk radio lower back interior the days of the fairness Doctrine. this is a fantasy that talk radio grew to become into bland during that era. Radio in maximum cases grew to become into much extra exciting till now deregulation - stations actual had multiple formats and did no longer basically have syndicated programming or play the comparable 20 songs repeatedly. on the time, there have been opinionated talk host on the spectacular and the left. talk radio grew to become into plenty extra troublesome for the time of the fairness Doctrine days given which you actual heard authentic debate and differing evaluations. The hosts weren't muzzled yet basically had to furnish a while to recent opposing perspectives. maximum of talk radio right this moment is basically propaganda. A handful of firms (possessing almost all of radio stations) provide us in user-friendly terms the evaluations that they choose us to take heed to. most of the hosts basically recite speaking factors from the RNC. the only exception that i will think of of is a uncommon reasonable like Jim Bohananon or Michael Medved - a conservative talk host who in lots of cases features travelers that he disagrees with. We deserve extra suitable than one-sided propaganda on the airwaves - i do no longer care despite if this is coming from Rush Limbaugh from the spectacular or Air united states of america of america from the left.