Amazon.com Widgets

Does freedom of speech give us the right to offend?

  • Yes, it does.

    First off, hate speech is way overstated. Now days, even just saying that you disagree with the beliefs of homosexuals, transgenders, and other things such as these can be considered as hate speech. In return, the person who says that he or she disagrees with these ways of life is called a bigot, therefore hate speech is being inflicted upon that person, creating a whole new complication. Some people disagree with other people, and they have the right to express that opinion, whether other people like it or not. Our ancestors who fought in the American Revolution didn't have freedom of speech before they won their (and our) independence from Great Britain. And guess what happened to people who said something against the king? Tar and feathers. Hanging. Prison. We have the right to express our beliefs and say what we want, and if you want to back to dictatorship where you can't say whatever you please, go to a communist country, please.

  • Sxdcv sdfs sd

    Sdfs sdf s s s s s s s ss j km k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k ol k l l k k k k k k kz;xdifn;j LKSJDF pskd pi ;jn; ;kj ;kjn lkj h h h h h h h h

  • The freedom of speech gives people the power to offend

    The freedom of speech gives people the power to offend because it is written clearly in the constitution of the United States of America,” Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof or abridging the freedom of speech…,” . In short, the Constitution of the Unites States allows people to say whatever they want without punishment. Any person who says otherwise is breaking the law of the land. Others might say,” When did it become constitutional to hate others? Well, the fact is, it’s always been constitutional technically speaking. Is it the right thing to do? No. Is it allowed? Yes.

  • The freedom of speech gives people the power to offend

    The freedom of speech gives people the power to offend because it is written clearly in the constitution of the United States of America,” Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof or abridging the freedom of speech…,” . In short, the Constitution of the Unites States allows people to say whatever they want without punishment. Any person who says otherwise is breaking the law of the land. Others might say,” When did it become constitutional to hate others? Well, the fact is, it’s always been constitutional technically speaking. Is it the right thing to do? No. Is it allowed? Yes.

  • Freedom of Hate

    People have the right to say what they think and if we just stay silent, we would be fake people living fake lives. We have the right to say whatever we want, we have to be honest with each other to survive. Hate is normal and we have the right to express it

  • Having the choice of free speech gives us the choice to feel a particular way. It our human right

    Who's to say that its our governments problem of free speech; for it is in the constitution that have have this unalienable right, what i say may or may not offend but it is my human right with out any limitation to do and say as i feel and more.

  • You CANNOT Appease Everyone!

    The U.S. Constitution is the country's founding document and SUPREME LAW of the land! And in this Constitution it clearly states: "Article the third... Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances".
    Any state which creates a law to include penalty and prosecution regarding ones words IS ABRIDGING the U.S. Constitution!
    Nebraska Revised Statutes 28-1322 and Nebraska State Constitution Article I-5 which has contradictive statements in:

    "The State cannot constitutionally criminalize speech under this section solely because it inflicts emotional injury, annoys, offends, or angers another person. But speech can be criminalized under this section if it tends to or is likely to provoke violent reaction. State v. Drahota, 280 Neb. 627, 788 N.W.2d 796 (2010).

    Above the State of Nebraska condones the U.S. Constitution and then listed below they clearly violate the U.S. Constitution by creating laws to abridge what the Constitution clearly states!

    Under subsection (1) of this section, the definition of breach of the peace is broad enough to include the offense of disturbing the peace; it signifies the offense of disturbing the public peace or tranquility enjoyed by citizens of a community. The term "breach of the peace" is generic and includes all violations of public peace, order, or decorum, or acts tending to the disturbance thereof. Provocative language consisting of profane, indecent, or abusive remarks directed to the person of the hearer may amount to a breach of the peace, and such language constitutes "fighting" words, which are not constitutionally protected forms of speech. State v. Broadstone, 233 Neb. 595, 447 N.W.2d 30 (1989)".

    Nebraska Government is clearly ABRIDGING THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION by creating a law that overrides the Freedom of Speech found in the U.S. Constitution or the document that is LAW OF THE LAND!

    According to Nebraska's Statutes 28-1322 - a person could fart on a city bus and violate this law as surely it might offend another rider on the bus, furthermore, the irony of Nebraska's law would basically mean you could look at another person wrong or even pay a compliment to another person and if that person deemed it "Hostile or Offensive" than you have "Disturbed their Peace" The irony alone proves that by abridging the U.S. Constitution with Nebraska's own law is UNCONSTITUTIONAL by nature and indefensible from a defendants perspective!
    Any state who does this is NOT A UNITED STATE and any President who does this is NOT A UNITED STATES PRESIDENT! i.e. Barrack Obama!
    Our country is going to hell in a handbasket and unfortunately, it will most likely need anarchy to turn it around! I'M READY!!

  • You CANNOT Appease Everyone!

    The U.S. Constitution is the country's founding document and SUPREME LAW of the land! And in this Constitution it clearly states: "Article the third... Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances".
    Any state which creates a law to include penalty and prosecution regarding ones words IS ABRIDGING the U.S. Constitution!
    Nebraska Revised Statutes 28-1322 and Nebraska State Constitution Article I-5 which has contradictive statements in:

    "The State cannot constitutionally criminalize speech under this section solely because it inflicts emotional injury, annoys, offends, or angers another person. But speech can be criminalized under this section if it tends to or is likely to provoke violent reaction. State v. Drahota, 280 Neb. 627, 788 N.W.2d 796 (2010).

    Above the State of Nebraska condones the U.S. Constitution and then listed below they clearly violate the U.S. Constitution by creating laws to abridge what the Constitution clearly states!

    Under subsection (1) of this section, the definition of breach of the peace is broad enough to include the offense of disturbing the peace; it signifies the offense of disturbing the public peace or tranquility enjoyed by citizens of a community. The term "breach of the peace" is generic and includes all violations of public peace, order, or decorum, or acts tending to the disturbance thereof. Provocative language consisting of profane, indecent, or abusive remarks directed to the person of the hearer may amount to a breach of the peace, and such language constitutes "fighting" words, which are not constitutionally protected forms of speech. State v. Broadstone, 233 Neb. 595, 447 N.W.2d 30 (1989)".

    Nebraska Government is clearly ABRIDGING THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION by creating a law that overrides the Freedom of Speech found in the U.S. Constitution or the document that is LAW OF THE LAND!

    According to Nebraska's Statutes 28-1322 - a person could fart on a city bus and violate this law as surely it might offend another rider on the bus, furthermore, the irony of Nebraska's law would basically mean you could look at another person wrong or even pay a compliment to another person and if that person deemed it "Hostile or Offensive" than you have "Disturbed their Peace" The irony alone proves that by abridging the U.S. Constitution with Nebraska's own law is UNCONSTITUTIONAL by nature and indefensible from a defendants perspective!
    Any state who does this is NOT A UNITED STATE and any President who does this is NOT A UNITED STATES PRESIDENT! i.e. Barrack Obama!
    Our country is going to hell in a handbasket and unfortunately, it will most likely need anarchy to turn it around! I'M READY!!

  • Freedom of Speech INCLUDES Freedom to Offend - PERIOD!

    The U.S. Constitution is the country's founding document and SUPREME LAW of the land! And in this Constitution it clearly states: "Article the third... Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances".
    Any state which creates a law to include penalty and prosecution regarding ones words IS ABRIDGING the U.S. Constitution!
    Nebraska Revised Statutes 28-1322 and Nebraska State Constitution Article I-5 which has contradictive statements in:

    "The State cannot constitutionally criminalize speech under this section solely because it inflicts emotional injury, annoys, offends, or angers another person. But speech can be criminalized under this section if it tends to or is likely to provoke violent reaction. State v. Drahota, 280 Neb. 627, 788 N.W.2d 796 (2010).

    Above the State of Nebraska condones the U.S. Constitution and then listed below they clearly violate the U.S. Constitution by creating laws to abridge what the Constitution clearly states!

    Under subsection (1) of this section, the definition of breach of the peace is broad enough to include the offense of disturbing the peace; it signifies the offense of disturbing the public peace or tranquility enjoyed by citizens of a community. The term "breach of the peace" is generic and includes all violations of public peace, order, or decorum, or acts tending to the disturbance thereof. Provocative language consisting of profane, indecent, or abusive remarks directed to the person of the hearer may amount to a breach of the peace, and such language constitutes "fighting" words, which are not constitutionally protected forms of speech. State v. Broadstone, 233 Neb. 595, 447 N.W.2d 30 (1989)".

    Nebraska Government is clearly ABRIDGING THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION by creating a law that overrides the Freedom of Speech found in the U.S. Constitution or the document that is LAW OF THE LAND!

    According to Nebraska's Statutes 28-1322 - a person could fart on a city bus and violate this law as surely it might offend another rider on the bus, furthermore, the irony of Nebraska's law would basically mean you could look at another person wrong or even pay a compliment to another person and if that person deemed it "Hostile or Offensive" than you have "Disturbed their Peace" The irony alone proves that by abridging the U.S. Constitution with Nebraska's own law is UNCONSTITUTIONAL by nature and indefensible from a defendants perspective!
    Any state who does this is NOT A UNITED STATE and any President who does this is NOT A UNITED STATES PRESIDENT! i.e. Barrack Obama!
    Our country is going to hell in a handbasket and unfortunately, it will most likely need anarchy to turn it around! I'M READY!!

  • Freedom of Speech INCLUDES Freedom to Offend - PERIOD!

    The U.S. Constitution is the country's founding document and SUPREME LAW of the land! And in this Constitution it clearly states: "Article the third... Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances".
    Any state which creates a law to include penalty and prosecution regarding ones words IS ABRIDGING the U.S. Constitution!
    Nebraska Revised Statutes 28-1322 and Nebraska State Constitution Article I-5 which has contradictive statements in:

    "The State cannot constitutionally criminalize speech under this section solely because it inflicts emotional injury, annoys, offends, or angers another person. But speech can be criminalized under this section if it tends to or is likely to provoke violent reaction. State v. Drahota, 280 Neb. 627, 788 N.W.2d 796 (2010).

    Above the State of Nebraska condones the U.S. Constitution and then listed below they clearly violate the U.S. Constitution by creating laws to abridge what the Constitution clearly states!

    Under subsection (1) of this section, the definition of breach of the peace is broad enough to include the offense of disturbing the peace; it signifies the offense of disturbing the public peace or tranquility enjoyed by citizens of a community. The term "breach of the peace" is generic and includes all violations of public peace, order, or decorum, or acts tending to the disturbance thereof. Provocative language consisting of profane, indecent, or abusive remarks directed to the person of the hearer may amount to a breach of the peace, and such language constitutes "fighting" words, which are not constitutionally protected forms of speech. State v. Broadstone, 233 Neb. 595, 447 N.W.2d 30 (1989)".

    Nebraska Government is clearly ABRIDGING THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION by creating a law that overrides the Freedom of Speech found in the U.S. Constitution or the document that is LAW OF THE LAND!

    According to Nebraska's Statutes 28-1322 - a person could fart on a city bus and violate this law as surely it might offend another rider on the bus, furthermore, the irony of Nebraska's law would basically mean you could look at another person wrong or even pay a compliment to another person and if that person deemed it "Hostile or Offensive" than you have "Disturbed their Peace" The irony alone proves that by abridging the U.S. Constitution with Nebraska's own law is UNCONSTITUTIONAL by nature and indefensible from a defendants perspective!
    Any state who does this is NOT A UNITED STATE and any President who does this is NOT A UNITED STATES PRESIDENT! i.e. Barrack Obama!
    Our country is going to hell in a handbasket and unfortunately, it will most likely need anarchy to turn it around! I'M READY!!

  • It can lead to harmful or unintended consequences.

    Imagine a parent tells his/her 6 year old child to go jump off a building because the child is annoying the parent for any reason. This child actually goes and does it, how useful is freedom of speech in this situation?

    What if a 40 year old man wants to verbally abuse a 10 year old girl, who he sees in the subway, with sexual comments? Obviously the little girl might be offended, and even the people around to hear it might be offended. What use is freedom of speech here? For those of you who believe in morals, this example should appeal to you.

    What about a cult? Should a cult have the freedom to indocrinate people and children through speech?

    And how do "rights" come about? How can you prove that freedom of speech, or anything, grants us certain rights? Nothing, but nature, can grant us rights. A human concept like freedom of speech cannot.

    I am not saying that we should completely oppress people's speech, but it would benefit us all if we have limits.

  • No...When did that become an absolute virtue if at all?

    Of course, whenever truth is spoken people will be offended because ideas do not exist in a vacuum - they exist in people's minds. We must be able to have discussion separating an idea and the person who holds it. When "offending" is the primary intention in a discussion then it is absolutely useless, you don't win over the person and it's akin to abuse (namecalling, irreverence etc.). Free speech is not absolute...That's always why there are hate laws!

  • My man left me

    One night i was working late for the prez of da usa and dat man wanted to hit me up in his circle office thing, on dat wooden desk of his, where he made me film him and his hoe. He asked me because i was the only black maid there. And that offended me.
    And when i got home to my trailer. I caught my husband who is my 3rd cuz (he's not my 1st or 2nd so it's ight) and i caught him with his hand up my sisters clit. And that offended me. Because im half white and half black. Like im kinda a carmel not a piece of dark chocolate. And that offends me.

  • Order of words matter.

    Even though the yes side of this argument speaks sense, you have to remember that the way you express an opinion or view matters. If someone said "all Muslims are terrorists" this would offend all those who can prove that this statement or opinion is false. The way this is worded sounds like a fact and will therefore offend people. But if someone said "in my opinion, I feel that many Muslims are terrorists" this would cause less problems as it is obvious that it is an opinion. Therefore the person could calmly be reasoned with to change his / her opinion. Seeing as word order matters, it does not give us the right to offend someone especially not purposely. We should not abuse the fact that we have freedom of speech.

  • Hate speech should not be apart of the free speech catogory.

    Using hate speech again st other people can lead to self-harm and suicide. For example when you go up to a kid and tell them 3 simple words "I hate you" they take seriously. The phrase "Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me" doesn't work in this generation because there are so many kids say mean words that really dig deep into peoples hearts.

  • Offending the freedom

    The right of having freedom of speech grants us liberty but not the right to hurt others by shouting racial slurs or homophobic comments to people who might be different than you or because you feel that you might just want to get some fun out of. Freedom of speech was given to us by our fore fathers not intended to be used for terrible comments

  • No offence no problem

    As long as a person does no harm ,injury and causes no loss you can say what you like .But when you intentionally go out to cause offence
    As your right to freedom of speech expect (rightly so) the right to be hurt some wher some time ,at that point shut up and eat your words ,force fed or not .

  • Banta chicken l

    The right to offend It is everyone's right to criticize, and that criticism may offend others. When the criticism is directed toward an idea, a thought, a stance - this is acceptable discourse. We must all have the right to object, criticize or disagree. To attack a race, a person's colour or 'look'...Well, this is hate and not acceptable. We must recognize the salient differences between hate vs. Criticism. We must protect our right to acceptable methods of criticism through satire, comedy, speech, etc. Attacking an idea or ideology is fair game.

  • Ever heard the saying words speak bigger then your actions?

    One may think that words can not hurt someone but I tend to disagree. Just because you are not hurting someone physically does not mean that you are not hurting the person mentally. People use words in many ways, but there are people out there that will use words to actually hurt people inside. There are multiple ways that words can hurt people whether it is over text message or in person. If you say hurtful words in person it can hurt and can be remembered but you can not always remember every specific detail and thing that was said to you in person unlike if it was a text message . If one sends hurtful words to a person over texts message then it can hurt them for a long period of time because they can view the hurtful word that was said to them whenever they want. Therefore, freedom of speech does allow you to hurt people with the use of words.

  • It more yes than No

    I think its a right to offend someone, but it is not a duty. It is almost like offending and be littling people is celebrated in the west. I live in the UK and it seems like there is always another minority being offended, without any sort of respect. But it would be interesting to have a poll on race who believe in the right to offend. Because I think marginalized individuals will have a different view.
    But I have a problem with the question because at a point in time saying women should have an education was offensive, this is why I believe there is a right to offend.


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