Under what circumstances should the right of free speech be curtailed?

Question

Note: I'm interested in knowing what you think. Do not assume that because I wrote the question, I must believe it should be curtailed.

Perhaps a better phrasing of the question should be:

Under what circumstances DO YOU BELIEVE the right of free speech should be curtailed?

Answer 1

NEVER.

Free speech is a NECESSARY component of democracy, is one of THE fundamentals our country was founded on, and is one of the only tests of true freedom in any society.

No terrorist can deny your freedoms or liberties. ONLY our own government can. Giving up our freedoms, liberties, civil rights, guarantees of due process, and protections from unfair treatment by our own government, protects government from US, but protects us from NOTHING. It not only will have no effect on terrorism, it is a sure invitation to political tyrrany, the very sort our forefathers sought to protect us from. The Patriot Act redefined our country, diminished our rights, and gave our President more power than our forefathers ever thought ANY President should have.

The ONLY brave and patriotic Americans around today are the ones LOUDLY voicing their opposition.

The elitist and self-righteous right-wingers who want things only for themselves, and whose biggoted false morality denies other's civil rights, need to find some other country to live. America is ALL OF OURS, and as a nation we must all stand together. If they can't get over themselves enough to stand with us all, then they're welcome to take a hike. Their loyalty to to their party preceeds their loyalty to our country. They're traitors to the AMERICAN WAY, pure and simple.

Answer 2

The right of free speech is granted under the First Amendment of the Constitution. Short of changing that document -- which is difficult to do and can take several years to accomplish -- there is no circumstance under which the right of free speech may be curtailed.

By the way, free speech does not include the right to overthrow the government or to incite riots or to shout "Fire!" in a crowded theater.

The Founders who wrote the Constitution intended it to be difficult and time consuming to change, requiring "super majorities" of two-thirds of the members of both houses of Congress to agree -- followed by agreement by three-fourths of the state legislatures, within seven years after congressional ratification. The intention was to give the Congress and the states ample time to debate and consider an amendment before making it part of the Constitution.

But that wasn't your question, was it?

You wanted to know whether there were circumstances under which free speech *should* be curtailed.

In our democracy, it is the speech that we hate the most that we should fight for. It's easy to permit free speech for people who agree with our (or the majority's) point of view. And, to some people, it may seem worthwhile to curtail speech that they consider disruptive or against their political views.

But eventually, the prevailing political views -- perhaps YOUR views -- may be in the minority -- and would you want them to be curtailed then? That's why we shouldn't curtail it at all.

Answer 3

All of our rights have limits. This ensures that our rights can be enjoyed by everybody. For example, highways have guard rails. Is that curtailing my freedom of movement? [How dare the government prevent me from driving on the median??] Of course not. They are there for protection of myself and others around me.

So we have free speech, but that doesn't mean I can just go anywhere yelling out any damn thing I want to. If I stood on the street corner and started speaking about something, that would likely be fine in most communities. But if my speech became incendiary or threatening or intimidating, that would be infringing on the rights of passersby and the community to go about their affairs in peace and safety.

For this reason most municipalities have statutes about peaceable assemblies. The right to demonstrate is a cherished one here, but in most cities, one needs a permit to hold a rally or demonstration, depending on the size of the event. This is not an effort to curtail free speech, rather it is for the safety of the community and the demonstrators.

I can't just start a rally on a street corner with hundreds of people, blocking traffic and creating a nuisance. That would be denying the rights of others to go about their business without fear, and it could potentially be dangerous by blocking fire and rescue crews if an accident, fire, or injury were to occur nearby.

Also, we have the right to free speech. However, we do not have a guarantee that people have to LISTEN to our speech.

Love Jack

Answer 4

Under very limited circumstance. Yelling fire in a crowded theater sort of thing. Otherwise we should have free speech and press.

Answer 5

don't understand a lot about how the first change works huh? the first change applies to the authorities — to guard persons from authorities censorship. even as the textual content of the first change says “Congress shall make no regulation … abridging the freedom of speech,” it signifies that no federal, state or interior reach authorities respectable can infringe on your free-speech rights. a private organisation isn't a authorities or state and therefore typically isn't concern to the criteria of the first change. you're welcome

Answer 6

Under no circumstances. What kind of question is that? Free speech is just that - 24/7.

Answer 7

1. Yelling fire in a theater
2. Releasing classified information
3. Violating a court ordered gag order
4. Degrading our military or President in a time of war. After all, the enemy hears this and it gives them hope.
5. Actively supporting American enemies. This includes American tv stations broadcasting interviews with Iran's Pres, doing fluff pieces on our enemies, saying we deserve to lose. Many Dems are guilty on this one.
6. The ACLU and most of its activities. They are a criminal gang of Christian haters who sue when someone does something that hurts their feelings. Their attack on Christianity viloates the First Amendment.

Answer 8

When national security secrets are revealed. The NYT should be held criminally liable as well as the person who is leaking them. I believe that the death penalty is allowed in cases such as this. Perhaps it will require us seeking the death penalty on someone before this insanity stops.

Answer 9

well, you cant shout fire in a crowed theatre, i think that is a law and a precedent. Libel, slander, etc is also against the law. I guess if it isnt true and can cause public harm, then it should be allowed.

Answer 10

1)when it affects the nations secret operations in wartime, such as the CIA and FBI trying to infiltrate groups that might be planning a terrorist attack against us(you don't want to read about that in the NYTimes, which they have tried to do)2)When it affects national security, such as employees of defense contractors building secret weapons for our government.