People should have total freedom of speech - For or Against?

A person's freedom ends where another person's freedom begins.

 

Against.

The infamous "fire" in a crowded theater, for instance. And one exception disproves the rule.

Lex

 

As much as I would totally love to say I'm completely for free speech there do have to be some limits.

You can say just about whatever you want you can say communism is the only way and the capitalist pigs suck. Or that black people don't deserve the right to vote. or that all gay people are going to hell unless they come to our little church and change their ways. Honestly I don't care if someone was saying that in a public forum I personally wouldn't silence him some people might.

However when you start saying things that put other peoples life in danger then you need to draw the line. As soon as someone starts saying we need to start rounding up the Jews, gays and gypsies or some other sick sh*t like that then you have a problem and I think that kind of person needs to be shut up and not allowed to say those things.

 

I believe that people should have total freedom of speech as long as it doesn't intervene with other's freedom of speech; so there should be a "natural or automatic limit", but not a technical limit when it comes to it... so in the end, I guess it wouldn't be a total freedom of speech, but enough freedom of speech for everybody. is that possible? *lol*

 

I am for the total and unabridged freedom of speech. There is a considerable difference between espousing a particular idea and forcing that idea on others. There comes a point in the censorship of "hateful" or "disruptive" speech where we cease to punish the act so much as the belief behind that act. That would inevitably lead to the policing of thoughts, which concept was explored in the novel 1984. Which I think we can agree is not a desirable outcome. Some have said that with the freedom of speech comes the responsibility to not offend. I disagree. If no speech ever challenged what anyone considered acceptable, then consider where the LGBT community would be. Many find us offensive in the same way we find hateful speech directed at us offensive. If we decide that it's alright to police speech for being offensive, why not police us for being offensive?* Because simply "offending" somebody is not severe enough grounds for that type of action. While speech may offend, hateful acts actually harm. Instead of trying to police thoughts that we find offensive, we should try and stop the acts themselves.

 

what martin said, basically :lol:

 

Couldn't say it better. Our rights are rightfully limited to the point of where we infringe on another's rights. Discrimination is no exception, when one person starts it, it has to be directed somewhere and at someone.. and that is where the line is, and should forever, be drawn.

 

Be careful to separate what we are lawfully allowed to do from what we should do.
I for one think we should have any speech lawfully acceptable, but there should be consequences from employers and such if it happens.

Example: Anchorwoman calls someone a fag live on TV. Government should not fine the station, but she should be fired.

 

Ever heard of Ann Coulter?

Anyway, I'm all for free speech as long as it does not A) cause illegitimate damage to the reputation of others, B) cause physical injury or illness to others, and C) does not incite hate crimes or excessive violence. So no, I guess I'm against absolute free speech in every instance.

 

I think its alot like the right to bear arms, like yeah every american has the right to carry a gun for protection, however going out and shooting people or someone isn't ok. Its like with your words, you have the right to carry your words and do what you'd like with them, however if you use them to specifically hurt people, then also that is not cool.

 

You should beable to say anything as long as it isn't
A. Harassment (Direct, you can say w.e you want behind closed doors)
B. Dangerous to others (like Fire in movie theators)

 

Freedom of Speech is fundamentally a good thing, but too many people abuse it. Example: Jehovah's Witness. We don't want other people cramming their ideas down our throats.

 

Against. If only for the "'Fire' in a crowded theater" case. Certain types of hate speech should also have at least "de facto" restrictions in terms of what setting you should be allowed to say it in. Criminalizing it would probably go WAY too far. Limits should be guided by potential for harm.

 

It would be madness, just for moral reasons & simple society convivence rules it's not supposed to be that way.

It's just like a common sense thing to me. Kahn could explain it a lot better

 

Against. Being for it is just one more step towards anarchy..

 

Against. A serious statement of intent to commit a crime - a death threat, for example - is extremely traumatic to the recipient, even when it is merely macho posturing, and is hence a form of psychological assault, in my opinion. This applies to homophobia and other bigotry, too.

 

Against. Yeah, I'm only for freedom of speech if it's within reason.

 

I would love to says free speech for everyone all the time but it has it's limits because one persons opinions are always going to hurt someone else and we don't need to encourage it by giving them total freedom of speech.