Many people answer questions with answers like, well freedom of speech, they had the right to say it, you have the right to express yourself and so do they.....
Dont you think there are many times when someone might have the right to say something, but probably shouldnt, and if they insist on saying it, then they deserve the criticism back for it?
(please try not to use this question to just bash on people you dont agree with because you can state differences of beliefs or opinions in a respectful way that doesnt deserve criticism and those arent the circumstances I am talking about)
2007-12-18 13:42:59 · 8 answers · asked by cadisneygirl 7 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
I study law and those who also do, know that we have to consider this question almost every day: What controls the fine line between one's legal right to express himself (at least in this country--we are given this with the 1st amendment) and his moral and ethical responsibility not to hurt and offend others with his expressions, whether written, spoken or otherwise.
The truth is, as long as we live in this crazy world, it will be an issue. As long as the expression does not materially damage one's career or plagiarize his work, or incite violence, then it is free to be said, whether it hurts feelings or not. There is judgment, but the full extent of it does not lie in our hands. But someday. . .
2007-12-18 14:14:58 · answer #1 · answered by colebolegooglygooglyhammerhead 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Yeah I do. We have so many rights today, and there are so many laws, and just because we have rights to certain things doesn't mean we should do those things. I think we need to see it as our obligation (morally, I guess) to not say something so terrible just because we have the right to. This kind of follows for all things. This is a bit off topic, but it kind of follows the same trend/theme: in most states there is no law that you are REQUIRED to assist someone, say, if they are in danger. But just because the law protects our right to stand by and not do anything, we should still do the correct thing that we know is right. Say in your neighbor's lawn a baby was crawling near a dangerous lawnmower that was turned on or something. Legally we don't have to go help the baby, but we still need to know that we should because its the right thing to do. Not sure if other people see the connection but I think there is one.
2007-12-18 21:54:41 · answer #2 · answered by Ryan H 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Of course. I have a right to tell two of my siblings that they are pooh heads and that they are the biggest jerks on the planet. If I did though, that would probably permanently destroy our relationship. For now, I will grit my teeth and smile and be very very glad that they live in a different state than I do.
2007-12-18 22:02:20 · answer #3 · answered by gumby 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Ryan H said it so well, using his analogy of trying to stop a baby from getting too close to a lawnmower. I myself have just about stopped trying to answer trolls or agitators. These people seem only to want to spout off, and I doubt they really want an answer. But as a minister, I am duly bound to answer legitimate questions as they arise.
2007-12-18 22:01:19 · answer #4 · answered by Brother Jonathan 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Freedom of Speech means that the people who hear the first person have the complete right to vehemently disagree with them.
2007-12-18 21:46:39 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Do 2 wrongs make a right? If they are wrong do they really deserve to be treated in the same way, or do you just fuel their attitude & go to their level?
2007-12-19 11:05:21 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes
2007-12-18 22:10:31 · answer #7 · answered by Champion of Knowledge 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Whatever basic rule you come up with, there will always be some situations where that rule should not be applied. That will never ever change. Learn to live with it.
2007-12-18 22:13:57 · answer #8 · answered by youngmoigle 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋