• There's no such thing as absolute freedom.

    It's impossible to act with absolute freedom without interfering with other people's freedoms. I think a good compromise is the way most nations have their rights set up: your rights end where another's rights begin. Everyone has the right to feel safe, and the right to not be discriminated against.

    Those who abuse their right to freedom of speech for the express purpose of spreading hate (i.E., Westboro Baptist Church) defy both those rights for the target of their hate. There should be a legal power to force them to stop. People can say whatever they want in the privacy of their own home, but there should be some controls over what can be said in public.

  • I'm for freedom of speech but freedom within certain boundaries :-)

    There are two schools, one that prevails in Europe where i live more ( specifically Poland :-) ) that my freedom ends where it begins to freedom of another person. Second school which is prevails in America stand for unlimited freedom of sepach.

    I believe that freedom of sepach should have certain limit, because if not every lie or wicked ideas can be spread. For exemple Poland constitution forbidding promotion of totalitarian regime, and more specifically, the Nazi and Communist, because both countries Poland knows all too well.

    We have also two additional acts passed by Sejm (our Parlament) one forbidding spreading of Holocaust denial and second one Passed several years which forbidding publishing obscene novel that contain underage characters performing explicit (sexual) acts, that bills forbidding also computer generated pornography involving minors (computer generated child porn)

    Child porn was always banned in Poland in fact producing all pornography was banned in Poland during Communism and was lifted (except pedophilic and zoophilic porn) in 1995 after fall of communism. I'm against porn because it's sooner or later will get in children (and more precisely boys hands) which can wrongly affect their mind.

    There also radicals religion like Islam which urges his followers to initiate acts of violence and terrorism
    So i'm for soft form of censorship.

  • Of course freedom of speech should be limited, It is not right insulting each other.

    When the Charlie Hebdo attacks ocurred in January 2015, most of people were outraged because it was a threat to freedom of speech. Now I ask; would those people that say "Je suis Charlie" wanted someone else insulting their family? Of course violence is not the solution, what those muslims did, should be condemned, but there is some kind of hypocrisy among those "Charlies".

  • It's Still Freedom

    Even though groups like Neo Nazis and the Westboro Baptist Church use their freedom of speech for all the wrong reasons, our freedom of speech is still constitutionally guaranteed, and always should be. Taking away freedom is a slippery slope, a slope America should never go down.

    "I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it."

  • There is a reason freedom of speech is one of the basic human rights.

    Freedom of speech isn't something you can only partially have or "limit", you either have it, or you don't.
    Europe is a great example, they have hate speech laws; which have never actually stopped anyone from spreading vile ideologies like Islamism and Fascism. The only thing laws like these could possibly do is force the unpopular ideologies of the time into secrecy, which ironically makes them even more likely to succeed.
    The way freedom of speech works is that all ideas get equal exposure, and thereby equal criticism. This process roots out bad ideas and promotes good ones. As soon as you put any limit on free speech the banned ideas won't get nearly as much bad exposure as and will therefore be more likely to attain followers.

    Another great example is how the governments of Germany, Sweden and Denmark have censored the crimes committed by some of the immigrants (a.K.A. Refugees) as to prevent right wing parties from getting supports for their arguments.

    Or maybe how no one really knows how many Muslims live in France, not to mention how many fundamentalists there are between them.

    Or how it's Illegal to question the holocaust?!
    I honestly can't think of one single thing this law is useful for, did they think neo Nazis would convince people that the Last century didn't happen? This law and many more like it are ridiculous because the people who are fascists will still be fascists, they'll just hide it. And I think it's a lot more dangerous when it's pretending to be something more benign.....

  • It's a basic human right

    Freedom of speech is a basic human right. If people want to spread hate and deny the holocaust, then they should have the right to be stupid. It's a guaranteed right in the US Constitution.

    As stschiffman said, "taking away freedom is a slippery slope, a slope America should never go down".

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.