Do you believe there should ever be times when Freedom of Expression should be limited?

Question

What do you think?

Answer 1

Not if you live in America where Freedom of Expression is guaranteed.

Answer 2

If you mean Freedom of Speech, it is already limited in that, if your exercise for free speech endangers someone else, it is not legal.

The example used was that you can stand in the middle of a wheat field and scream "fire" to your hearts content. You can not do it in a crowded theater. People would be crushed in the press to get out.

Freedom of speech includes prejudice and racism. There is no law against the free expression of either of these two concepts. The law only addresses them when they are associated with other rights (jobs, housing, etc). That's why the KKK still holds public rallys. It's legal.

Answer 3

If it is slander or resembles slander; if it is considered an obscenity; if it is hostile in a defamatory way, if it is considered a danger (immediate or otherwise) to someone; if it is unsubstantiated; if it is considered a risk to local or national security; and lastly there are a number of words that aren't technically illegal (by themselves) but if said to law enforcement, criminal charges would result. You can't officially say those words. How the latter situation is enforced ranges greatly; in some mediums (such as on live TV) breaking obscenity laws will land you in jail with a $2000 fine while in the privacy of your home or yard law enforcement most likely will have better things to do than to even notice. So, it depends HOW and WHERE you put your freedom of expression to the test, to see if it is considered acceptable or not.

Answer 4

Don't confuse freedom of expression with freedom of speech. I believe everyone has the right to speak freely but when it come to expression, I think it is better to get your point across without being offensive and shoving things down other's throats. It is not always what you say but rather how you say it.

Answer 5

no. i would like to say when it's racist or sexist, but if we start down that slope, other "offensive" comments will also be illegal. this is bad because the people determining what speech would be illegal are the people in politics. i think we can all agree that the majority of americans often disagree with the supreme court, senate, congress, and president. so, it wouldn't be like WE would decide what should be banned, THEY would and we would be forced to obey. i think that societal norms already perform this function. even if someone is a flaming racist, they typically keep these ideas to themselves in public, at school, and at work for fear of being a social outcast, being fired, or being beaten. these social checks and balances are probably more effective than a gov ruling, because they are decided by the people and are enforced consistently whether the person is rich or poor, famous or infamous.

you should read the book "1984" it's very interesting.

Answer 6

There is actually a time when freedom of expression is limited. You can't go around inciting violence and hatred that is likely to cause a third party to go out and commit a crime against society. Many, many people have been jailed in this scenario for what they called "expression" but there's a line one has to be careful to not cross.

The other instances are public disclosure of private facts, slander, and libel. Self explanatory.

Answer 7

Well, the old saw is "The right to free speech does not include being able to yell 'FIRE' in a crowded theater."

Put more globally, I've heard it said that the first principle of liberty is that it should not restrict or impinge on the liberty of others.

N.B.: This works both ways: You might be offended by the contents of a pornographic magazine or website. But no one obliges you to look at them, do they? On the other hand, plastering walls with X-rated images or hate-based slogans, or screaming obscenities into your cellphone or playing provocative rap music on a bus or subway obviously impinges on the freedom of others to have full benefit of public places.

It takes common sense and tolerance in practice. Unfortunately, neither of these are particularly popular or fashionable things these days.

Answer 8

Once we start censoring our freedoms, be it speech or whatever, we open the door to loosing other things as well. Personally I think we've already given up the rights our forefathers fought all the wars to give us. BUT I REFUSE TO HAVE MY MOUTH SHUT BY LAW. Or to be put in a place where I can't defend my self against assaults, verbal or otherwise.

Answer 9

Freedom of expression is not a right, but freedom of speech is. And no it should not be limited. There are times I would love to punch out those that spit lies and deceit, but it is their right and I have to respect it, just as they HAVE to respect my right.

Answer 10

It always needs to be limited. People have to realize that there is a time and a place to criticize EVERYTHING. Sometimes its simply not appropriate to say some things.