Do you think it is right to put any boundaries on free expression in order to prohibit insulting and abusive speech? should people get punished for making such speech? why or why not?
2006-10-04 21:14:43 · 3 answers · asked by hesper 1 in Society & Culture ➔ Etiquette
Sticks and stones may break my bones (IEDs included), but words will never hurt me.
The first amendment allows all free speach that does not cause harm (i.e. slander, yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre). The FCC has overstepped its bounds by censoring words like "F*ck" and "Sh*t" that refer to things that might be found offensive by some, but do NOT cause any harm.
Freedom does NOT mean freedom from being offended or insulted. Just free from HARM (physical or material, but not your pride or dignity).
2006-10-04 21:25:03 · answer #1 · answered by Mac Momma 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Well there are ways to do both. I like the example of one county in Georgia which instituted a $10 fine for assaulting a flag burner. Essentially, this protected the freedom of speech but only using the minimal of protection. So next time a guy wants to burn a US flag in that county, he will be free to do so and the government will back him, but he will definitely think about other people kicking his *** if he does it.
2006-10-05 00:36:18 · answer #2 · answered by robertbdiver 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No they shouldn't be punished unless their speech causes harm to others unjustifiably - shouting "fire!" in a crowded theatre is the most common example of impermissible speech. Otherwise, the only proper response to speech we don't like is to present alternitive speech, such as "People don't appreciate your foul language, mate!"
2006-10-04 21:25:45 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋