Where do we draw the line between exercising our right to free speech and using common sense?

Question

Just because we have the *right* to say something, does that mean we always *should*? Where does the boundary come in between using our right and abusing it?

This question is inspired by another which was asked about the Hate Crimes Act -- but I don't want to argue about that. But for example, although Christians have the right to express the Biblically supported belief that homosexuality is a sin, is it necessary or "moral" to invade someone else's turf for the day -- public space that is being used for a gay pride event, maybe -- and scream it at the top of your lungs?

Fellow Christians, how would you feel if your church was having a picnic or event, and another group of people showed up, waving signs about how Christians are wrong and going to hell? Even though they have the *right* to do so?

Just like the Fred Phelps crew -- they have the *right* to "Thank God For Dead Soldiers", but should they really? Especially at military funerals?

Where do you draw the line?

Oh, and by the way -- I don't believe the government should draw that line. I'm talking about personal responsibility as individuals.

I'm not talking about taking anybody's rights away! That's the last thing I want. The question I'm asking is subjective -- because I mean where do we draw the line as individuals? Like I said, I'm asking about PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY.

Answer 1

I draw the line when it is not my place to speak out. If someone is asking my opinion or on Yahoo answer we can give our opinion then I will, according to Guru and Scriptures only to benefit others. But to do this in hate never solves anything. It must be spoken out of compassion. I find that activism is never the answer to end a problem. We should give our scriptural reasoning to those who are inquiring. Everyone has free will. If we are not in a position to make proper changes then it really is a violation of someones rights to impose on them. Everyone will get their karma. That is the law of material nature. Though we should have policemen and judges. (hoping they are acting in justice) Ultimately everyone will get their karma good or bad. So no need to take unnecessary extreme ways to try to get our point across to others. It all works out in the end.
The Devotees of Lord Krishna have a huge parade festival in L. A. California,which they feed thousands of people and teach about the soul. They pay a lot of money to put on this festival and the Christians every year dress up in cow uniforms and insult the devotees by saying they are all going to eternal hell. They mock the devotee, that they are vegetarian (nonviolent) Last year was the first time in 30 years that the festival was going on that the Christians didn't do this. I think they got the picture that it was harassment and was pissing others off who where not even devotees but loved the festival. Terrorizing others or bible thumping, never changes hearts, nor does it raise anyones consciousness. World Peace. Unity in Diversity and Diversity in Unity.

Answer 2

It is really a very thin line, and unfortunately common sense is not the same thing to everyone, but I think that if we all have Respect as the main goal, much could be avoided. Concerning the homosexuals vs Christians, it is really pathetic how Christians can carry so much hate on their hearts, it doesn't even make sense...

Peace!

Answer 3

Have you ever heard the expression "Freedom is not free".

Having to listen to jackasses like Phelps and his ilk is part of the price we pay for freedom of speech.

I think the solution is not censorship, but counter speech.

Also, many hateful people like Phelps and his ilk, try to tread the line right up to still being legal, but invariably, they will eventually break the law.

Trespassing laws, disturbing the peace laws, anti-stalking laws, etc, can take care of many, but not all of the obnoxious "free speechers".

Most decent people, don't feel the need to confront the whole world with their opinions, and soone or later Phelps and his band of hateful "church members" will break some law and get their come uppance.

Answer 4

My feeling is that the line cannot be drawn, and that's why we have Freedom of Speech. If there were a definable line between "good" speech and "bad" speech, you couldn't make an argument that all speech should be free. The argument for Freedom of Speech hinges on the fact that you cannot define the content of good verses bad speech.

Answer 5

With every right comes one or more responsibilities, but these are not as well "codified" as are the rights.

With speech and expression, comes the responsibility to use it appropriately. "Appropriately" is a nebulous term, but it should encompass when and when not to use your freedom of speech/expression - the problem of course remains in what is appropriate. As a funeral is a necessary part in helping a family deal with grief and not in any way a political statement, I firmly think that bringing politics into it is a cruel and unacceptable action.

Answer 6

Obnoxious, hurtful, unkind behavior is never o.k.. I'm a Christian and that's against what the Bible testifies, about the fruits of the Spirit.

Answer 7

Rights are absolute. Fred Phelps, as much as I hate to say it, has every right to do what he does.

"Should", "Ought" and "moral" are terms that are subjective. What we should do is up to us to decide, but what we think others shouldn't do does not give us the ability to abridge their rights, no matter HOW odious their beliefs are.

Answer 8

it's a personal view of respect....