does the right to free speech also need the responsibility to be offended and accept it?

Answer 1

The fact that someone is excersising his/her right to speak does not forces you to accept it. But that is on a personal level, not on a legal (state) level.

Freedom of speech is the concept of being able to speak freely without censorship. It is often regarded as an integral concept in modern liberal democracies.

The synonymous term freedom of expression is sometimes preferred, since the right is not confined to verbal speech but is understood to protect any act of seeking, receiving and imparting information or ideas, regardless of the medium used.
In practice, the right to freedom of speech is not absolute in any country.
The United States First Amendment theoretically grants absolute freedom, placing the burden upon the state to demonstrate when (if) a limitation of this freedom is necessary.

Protecting unpopular speech is itself an act of tolerance. Such tolerance serves as a model that encourages more tolerance throughout society.
Critics argue that society need not be tolerant of the intolerance of others, such as those who advocate great harm, even genocide. Preventing such harms is claimed to be much more important than being tolerant of those who argue for them.

Ever since the first consideration of the idea of 'free speech' it has been recognised that the right to free speech is subject to restrictions and exceptions. The best-known is typified by the statement that free speech does not allow falsely "shouting fire in a crowded theatre" (Schenck v. United States).

Answer 2

Free speech is a two edge sword. We say what we like at any time we like. A lot of people say things they shouldn't and hurt others. But which would you prefer, free speech, or some law officer knocking on you're door at odd hours? You have the right to say what you want up to a certain point and others have that same right to respond.

Answer 3

Freedom of speech is the concept of being able to speak freely without censorship. It is often regarded as an integral concept in modern liberal democracies. The right to freedom of speech is guaranteed under international law through numerous human rights instruments, notably under Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, although implementation remains lacking in many countries. The synonymous term freedom of expression is sometimes preferred, since the right is not confined to verbal speech but is understood to protect any act of seeking, receiving and imparting information or ideas, regardless of the medium used.

In practice, the right to freedom of speech is not absolute in any country, although the degree of freedom varies greatly. Industrialized countries also have varying approaches to balance freedom with order. For instance, the United States First Amendment theoretically grants absolute freedom, placing the burden upon the state to demonstrate when (if) a limitation of this freedom is necessary. In almost all liberal democracies, it is generally recognized that restrictions should be the exception and free expression the rule; nevertheless, compliance with this principle is often lacking.Contents [hide]
1 Theories of free speech
1.1 Overview
1.2 Self-governance
1.3 Discovering truth
1.4 Promoting tolerance
2 Restrictions on free speech
3 The Internet
4 Quotations
4.1 General
4.2 In support of free speech
4.3 In support of specific limits
5 See also
6 Research Resources
7 References
8 External links

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech

The ADL's "Hate Laws" would abolish this right.

Answer 4

Hi....Interesting question I might add. What is Free speech? The dictionary states that "Freedom of Speech" is the liberty to freely say what one pleases, as well as the liberty to hear what others have stated. Now with this in mind, then one needs to realize that what comes with 'free speech' so does the gossip, slandering, and sometimes humiliation and degrading on how one person portrays them self to another or visa versa. Humans have the tendency to harm others with words. Whether it's racial or intimidation against another or just being rude and inconsiderate. It's a flaw that some of us have. In my opinion, this law of "Freedom of Speech" should have been more defined when written. Freedom of speech with limitations. Some of your business's and groups and songwriters have gone over bounds with this law. The media is one and some of your groups that antagonize issues to keep people stirred with their acts and emotions. One doesn't have the right to intimidate another or to humiliate another due to their race, religion or their beliefs or gender. Some people don't realize that slandering another for whatever reason is a sin against Gods law. But most of us don't think about that since our mouths run a muck and we don't stop and think before we speak. So I feel that Freedom of Speech should be revised or limited. We don't have to accept being humiliated or offended by anyone. It's not moral and certainly not ethical as a Christian. Have a great day!

Answer 5

There are a lot of Democrats here. Free Speech and INFORMED Free Choice are antithetical to and cannot be reconciled with Democrat policy demands. Democrats elevate criminals as their icons and mentors. Democrats openly decry the CONCEPTS of family and personal responsibility and claim self-reliance is IMPOSSIBLE. Democrats claim being on the government " dole " is the ONLY LEGITIMATE lifestyle choice. Democrats claim actual rights do not and CANNOT exist: that privileges government forces OTHERS to provide are the only "rights." Democrats claim gender is an artificial construct. Democrats claim you are ENTITLED to whatsoever you can get government to FORCE OTHERS to give you. Democrats claim "right & wrong" are artificial and HARMFUL constructs and that claiming any difference exists is itself evil. Democrats claim bureaucrats who will never meet you know BETTER THAN YOU DO how to address not just your needs but your wants as well. Democrats claim the very existence of America and Americanism are illegitimate, that the pre-America World is the natural state to which we MUST return. They call this "progress." Democrats claim it is stupid and primitive NOT to be promiscuous or get pregnant out of wedlock; that it is WRONG if a man did the " right thing " and married the woman and " provided " financially and emotionally for the woman and child. Democrats claim it is WRONG to HAVE a work ethic. Democrats WILL DENY each and every one of these things. I'm not sure if that's IN SPITE of how extremely easy it is to find their popularly CHOSEN LEADERS saying them or if it's BECAUSE of it.

Answer 6

How you phrased the part about "responsibility to be offended" confuses me somewhat since not all things spoken freely are offensive. I would agree that if you listen (which we have the freedom not to do) you are responsible for your own reactions to what you hear and what you do about those reactions. I like Rousseau's comment in which he swears that he may not agree with the spoken but he would defend to the death the right of the person to say what he finds disagreeable.

Answer 7

You also have to be prepared to accept the consequences of your free speech. If you deliberately go out of your way to offend, don’t expect that the offended person will necessarily turn the other cheek.

Answer 8

Yes, Free speech is exactly what it says. Unfortunately to most people it is free only when it comes out of their mouth. If I want to express myself to a person or a group of people then I should be able to listen to a different way someone sees the situation. Not necessarily agree with it, but accept it, graciously.

Answer 9

Free speech can often be offensive. It can also be untrue...as you must realize if you have ever heard a Presidential speech. The only thing free speech cannot be is dangerous to others, such as shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theater.

Answer 10

I would say that the opposite -- that you have the right to free speech, but the responsibility to not be an a**hole and offend people.

But yes, people do need to choose their battles carefully -- not cry foul every time someone says something insensitive; however, being offended at vitriolic, hate-filled speech is both understandable and proper.