Should there be limits to freedom of speech? If yes how?

Answer 1

Speech designed to incite hatred or prejudice should be limited.

Answer 2

The only limitation I have in regards to freedom of speech refer to the case of Brandenburg v. Ohio, which disputed the Schenck v. United States (fire in a crowded theater) ruling. Unless the speech or action would be directly responsible for injury or death, there should not be a limit. The question is, what constitutes an injury? I encourage all to follow the links below and come up with there own conclusion.

Answer 3

there are already limits to free speech. The courts have held that certain types of speech which cause injury are prohibited. For example yelling fire in a crowded theater just to watch everyone run. Other limitations on free speech have also been imposed by hate crime and equal rights legislation. While it may be ignorant and unenlightened, bigotry is constitutionally protected. People have a right to their opinion, no matter how messed up it is. But to state that you would not like to have tennants of such and such race or religion will get you in hot water with the federal govt under the fair housing acts. Also there seems to be a trend in society today to stifle any opinion that is not politically correct or unpopular with the masses. Speaking out against homosexuality gets you branded as evil or a religious nut in the media. I think there is room in the world for all opinions, but there seems to be a leaning in our society towards institutionalized "Group think". Maybe george orwell had it right, just missed the date.

Answer 4

Well, people should shut up on their own every once in a while. But no, the government should never be allowed to impose limits on free speech. After so much blood has been poured into protecting that, how can anybody justify giving up any of our freedoms for any reason? I'd rather be insecure and free. But then, I've always bought into that "home of the Brave" thing, and evidently I'm not in the majority on that.

Answer 5

Free speech is just that. Limitations if any must be very carefully framed. The incitement law can be abused by thse in power. I.e. Some one say suggesting that all Muslims or Jews or Catholics should be killed out of hand are clearly unacceptable. but a campaign to have a person tried for neglect is not. Even if we find the campaign unreassonable and stupid

Answer 6

Your question is too broad.
Of course the speech right is not unlimited-- if that were true, it would be "free speech" to lie under oath at a trial, to start a riot by falsely shouting fire in a theater, to tell lies about other people hurting their reputation, to scream obscenities in the middle of a children's park, or I could start a demonstration right down the middle of the busiest street in every major city, distrupting traffic every day.
The Courts have created huge doctrines related to the "limits" on speech -- sometimes they just simply call an activity not "speech" protectable under the constitution (for example, libel, "fighting words," encitement). Sometimes they have balancing tests to determine whether there's a serious infringement of the speech right and whether the regulation is content-neutral and reasonable (like a "time, place, or manner" restriction requiring people to get permits and pay for police protection to march in a parade). Sometimes, there can be medium-based restrictions, for example to protect children (FCC's decency regulations, for example).

So your question should be more focused. Do you mean regulation on "CORE" speech (like political speech)? On private newspapers? Should the freedom be extended as against quasi-public spaces (like shopping malls)? Lots of sub-questions there.

Answer 7

You don't have to have limits, as long as you have accountability for what you say.

For example...

There are no ushers in movie theaters passing out contraptions that will prevent you from yelling fire in a theater. That would be a limit, as you've mentioned.

However, you could become arrested for yelling fire in a theater, which is the accountability that I've mentioned.

By the same token, you can face accountability charges under laws of slander, character defamaition or sedtion, all while exercising your right to freedom of speech.

Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from liability or accountability.

Answer 8

This is an area of law I’m particularly interested in so here my spin on it.

In this country up until the European Convention of Human Rights 1950, people in the United Kingdom did not have a freedom of expression, we were only granted residual powers; we could say anything we wanted as long as it was not illegal. So when the ECHR was introduced everyone assumed that a new right had been created in the shape of Article 10 - Freedom of Expression. Then the UK incorporated this piece of law into our law in 1998, which came into force 2nd October 2000 (before that it wasn’t strictly law due to the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty). The government were so clever as to create a piece of legislation with so many holes in it it resembled a piece of macaroni cheese. There are no useful powers the courts can use against the government when they create laws incompatible with the Human Rights Act. They can make a declaration of incompatibility but this means nothing due to the doctrine of parliamentary supremacy.

That is why for my dissertation I plan to look at whether this piece of 'law' has in any way swayed the government to restrain itself from impeding people’s right to express themselves.

However it is of my opinion that as the west continues to oppose radical Islamic terrorists that our freedoms are going to have to suffer. In order for our safety our freedoms are going to have to be sacrificed in order to control what is said/preached by those who threaten democracy, but in the end is it worth it?

Answer 9

What's the point of having freedom of speech if theres limits ?

Answer 10

One of the first advocates of free speech his name was JS Mill actually said that when free speech was an incitement to hatred or violence then it did not serve the purposes of democracy and thus should not be allowed. PPl seem to use free speech as an excuse for any old claptrap nowadays they have no idea that it is only allowed in order to allow freedom of thought and exposure to other pts of view and thus to enable democracy to function properly by stopping the gvmt from controlling what we are exposed to and thus controlling our thoughts in favour of them and their policies
Shouting "fire" in a cinema is not freedom and speech that would have been allowed by its original advocates, it was purely for political purposes to stop excessive political control

Answer 11

There are limits to freedom of speech.