We're lucky enough to live in a democracy and have a principle right to freedom of speech. But should we allow hateful speech e.g racial slurs and things that blatantly set out to offend others.
2006-11-21 19:49:41 · 30 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Cultures & Groups ➔ Other - Cultures & Groups
Freedom of speech is not a license to talk anything and any manner. In a civilized society, it should be restrained so that others can also enjoy their freedom. Hence, any speech that disturbs public peace, law and order, communal harmony and national security should be disallowed.
2006-11-23 15:14:10 · answer #1 · answered by Pmath 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Although we live in 'a democracy' (that is an illusion) we are not free. Thankfully, we do not live under a repressive regime where people have no rights. However, the concept of free speech is exactly that 'a concept'. We have no rights to 'free speech'...there are laws such as liable, slander and sedition that apply. If we lived in a true democratic society PERHAPS there would be no need for hateful speech. Hate usually occurs under situations where all people are not treated equally. It would be nice to live in a Utopian society, but I think that is entirely a dream.
2006-11-22 04:15:23 · answer #2 · answered by marimu 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
If you live in Britain and think we are a democracy or have free-speech then you are sadly mistaken.
To answer the question. No, there should be no limits on freedom of speech. That doesn't mean that you don't have to face the consequences of your own actions though.
2006-11-22 03:55:56 · answer #3 · answered by A True Gentleman 5 · 3⤊ 0⤋
I think it should be up to the individual to respect the limits of what society deems acceptable. I don't think that the goverment should introduce limits on free speech, although there should be action taking on intimidating language. People choose to take offence, and we can choose to not take offence.
Any language which is threatening and intimidating should be stopped, but I don't think that is a breach of freedom of speech, more preventing breaches of out other human rights.
Above all, we need to remember that the most important thing is not human rights, but human responsibilities.
2006-11-22 03:54:59 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
There should be limitations in the situations that you have described above. Some things you have a right to shout from the rooftops if you want to but some other matters you should keep to yourself or discuss when you are in a provate situation.
Even though there is a right to free speech, it's not a right to inciteful or hateful speech. If I slag you, you slag me even more and then what happens? It is a quick slide into a terrible, perhaps even anarchical, situation. I'm all for the saying, 'A wise man keeps his own counsel'. Sometimes it is better to think something than to say something.
2006-11-22 03:56:45 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
we do mot have freedom of speech at all. anything that might offend some other religion race creed or colour is frowned upon.**** you can even be arrested so wheres the freedom of speech its a nonsense and its getting worse due to the PC brigade.
2006-11-22 08:22:04 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Yes it should have limit. Sometimes people and especially big fishes, politicians go beyond the limit and make everyone complain for they even go to an extend of even abusing their seniors eg; president. This causes embarassment, lack of respect and also influences easy goers to be indisciplined. A country may have a very high degree of crime due to this, since the public finds their easy ways in behaving the way they want. If law is established for speech things will be better.
2006-11-22 03:56:20 · answer #7 · answered by macho knatcos 2 · 0⤊ 2⤋
The freedom of speech is already established by the
society you live in and a violation, if not punishable,
certainly will be discrimination.
2006-11-25 23:07:59 · answer #8 · answered by Ricky 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes, it should... and yes we do! Take a constitutional law class and see what they are. Hate speech is limited in a lot of states and inciting language (that provokes unrest) also is limited. There's a famous case on this, limiting one from shouting "Fire!" at a crowded theatre.
2006-11-22 03:58:27 · answer #9 · answered by bluasakura 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think freedom of speech should have it's own category, with warnings to those easily offended
2006-11-22 03:57:58 · answer #10 · answered by Powerpuffgeezer 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋