Do you believe in FREEDOM OF SPEECH with LIMITATIONS?

Question

What limitations?

OMG - FREEDOM OF SPEECH IS ALREADY LIMITED!!!!!!!!!
DUH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Answer 1

Anything inciting a riot, disruption of peace, and anything involving a conspiracy to incite, or act, with depraved indifference from this speechs consequence, including the possibility TOWARDS a crime being commited from this right (free speech, as it was intended for), in my opinion, is not free speech.

Answer 2

I agree with chippy, protesting at someone's funeral is just plain wrong. I think political protesting should be done in the public forum, on public property, not invading some family's personal space. that's why we have the right to assemble in public.
I also think speech should be kept honest and, if not fair, at least sensical. Journalists who lie about celebrities, history publishers who rewrite the truth, and political spinmeisters who try to twist something that happened -- all of that stuff should be outlawed.
As far as outlawing the KKK or outlawing anti-gay groups, that's what I call censorship. If the American Communist Party can assemble freely, then so can American Evangelicals.
People love to talk about freedom of speech...until you apply it to someone they disagree with. That's why our forefathers made the first amendment so broad, because they knew that some "fringe" groups would need the protection. Also, bear in mind, there was a time when abolition of slavery was a radical idea that was being "forced" upon the country by the religious right. So an idea that sounds so bad today might turn out to be accepted in the future. That's why freedom of speech is so important.
As far as someone being rude, no that should not be censored, because everyone has different definitions of rude. And anyway, if we're so PC we're scared to hurt someone's feelings, how can we ever debate or argue things out? I don't appreciate people who are rude, and I'm not rude myself, but that doesn't mean we should legislate it. Like the other guy said, if we all learned how to be polite, and if we ignored those who are rude, we wouldn't end up making a bunch of laws to babysit ourselves.

Answer 3

I believe in freedom to say whatever you wish.. Though constraint is a major factor.. A main limitation I see are those speakers who suggest a set of extreme idealist views, such as "should" do this, instead of "could" do this.. I do believe constraint is the primary limitation that people run into, with opinions stressing the concern of the one talking, not the audience and critics..

Now obviously freedom of speech is for the individual to express his/her view, but the view itself would be more effective if it is representing the people as a whole, rather than just personal opinions.. Basically, I think that when one indulges in his/her own ideas over the majority of people, this becomes their limitation.. This is the way I understand your question.. hope this helps. Cheers..

Answer 4

You can't feesibly put a legal limitation on it but in practice there should be a limitation of respect. The way you work this is allow all speech but punish those that cross that other "non"legal line. And that's what for the most part is already in place.

There are laws against slander, verbal harassment, etc.

Answer 5

Yes, I believe in limiting freedom of speech with two regards:

1) The use of profanity. As a parent I do not approve of others swearing in front of my children or the children of others. Kids will learn those words soon enough as they grow up but don't need to be exposed to it by belligerent adults.

2) Speaking falsely. If someone makes false accusations against someone else they should be held accountable for those words.

Words are probably the most powerful tool we humans have and it is a shame when we turn them against others without regard for who we are hurting with them.

Blessed Be )O(

Answer 6

yelling "fire" in a crowded theater when there is in fact no fire should be punishable as an offence - inciting riot/panic, etc, which can lead to a public harm - people trampling, etc.

Speaking on legitimate security secrets needs to be controlled - again for public safety. But it's too easy to label anything that an official doesn't want made public as "security," so even there, there needs to be protection from abuses.

Likewise, speaking out on a sealed record containing personal information needs to be controlled.

To sum up, the only limitations should be where the clear and present risk to another outweighs one's right to speak freely.

Answer 7

No limitations but the rule of law should always be applied. In the UK we have an offence called breach of the peace which basically covers any instances where people impinge upon the privacy of others whether verbally or physically. in other words you are free to express yourself until you cross the line and harass others in which case you answer for it in court.

Answer 8

There should be no Limitations for freedom of speech,but yes no one should not misuse the freedom of speech to hurt others.
I am from India, worlds largest Democracy there is no such thing like limitations in FREEDOM OF SPEECH.

Answer 9

No limitations. If you impose limitations on one thing, then why not another? In the end, what is free to talk about would be dictated by how certain people feel about it. When it comes to the funeral protesters (they are from my city), if they dont get publicity, then it would eventually stop. Ignore them. When they first started picketing gays in my town, no one liked them. Over time, they were ignored, and would show up less and less. Now they have national attention with people bickering about them, and they are getting what they want again. Just dont let them affect you and Fred Phelps will go away.

Answer 10

This is a tough question to answer. The first thing that comes to mind is that you have a right to swing your fist. However, your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins.

I guess what I'm saying is you have a right to say what you want. But you don't have a right to offend me or insult me. If I ask you to stop, you should respect that.

Does that make sense?