• Bbb bb bb

    Bbb bbb bb b f f f f f f f f f f ff f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f

  • Yes it should be restricted!

    Yes our first amendment is freedom of speech, and yes that is what our founding fathers wanted, but since we have so much freedom there is so much danger in the U.S. for example if we had restrictions not as many bad people will get away with the crimes they do so easily. Because of our FREE SPEECH there are groups like the KU KLUX KLAN that create such danger to our society. Back then when there wasen't so much freedom those people would get arrested for what they have done. If we had more restrictions there wouldn't be insidents like when they killed 9 black people in a church.

  • Yes it should be restricted!

    If there was no restriction people like Julian Assange would be able to get away with passing out highly confidential information which, if leaked, possesses a danger to the countries which it affects. This can range from details about war strategies to economic problems. If war strategies are exposed lives are likely to be needlessly lost; if economic secrets are exposed this could cause a major setback in economic stability or recovery.

  • Restriction is not logical

    Freedom of speech is an essential human right , i think. We can look an issue from different perspectives and have an idea about it or we can see what is true or not when speech is freedom.If there are some restrictions about speech , only people controlling power lead society and manipulate ideas according to their interests.It is also true that freedom has limits and our freedom ends where the others start but it is not clear evidence to protect society from harmful effects of speech because there are also books , the net etc other media sources and they can be accessible , too. No way to escape misinformation , for this reason it is not logical to restrict people's speech .On the contrary, it is a really good way to choose true information when people show their reactions , feelings or informations about topics ,addition to this society also can have a true attitude toward the what is going on.

  • Free speech should not be restricted.

    Freedom of speech is protect by the first amendment of the constitution, and it should not be restricted. This is an important political right and civil liberty. If the government tries to limit our right to freedom of speech, people will protest and this change will be remain in law.

  • No, of course free speech should not be restricted!

    We live in the United States, and one major perk that we have here is our freedom! This includes freedom of speech. If we start restricting that, what else will this Country restrict? What will make us different from third world countries? We need to stick to what our founding fathers wanted for this Country!

  • No, free speech should not be restricted.

    Almost every argument that supports restrictions on free speech includes some kind of subjective element, such as a level of offensiveness or undermining some type of "good" thought. But evaluating this subjective element always falls in the hands of the majority or power-holders, who have an interest in repressing disruptive thought.

  • No

    Free speech is a right of the constitution. We need to make sure we do not step on those rights. We should always be able to say how we feel about some thing especially if it is going to affect us or our family. That right has been around for a long time and should remain for a long time.

  • Not Any More Than Usual

    Free speech should not be restricted any more than usual. You can't yell "fire" in a crowded place without a fire actually happening. You can't make threats against someone without consequences. However, as long as no one gets hurt or no one is harmed, free speech should be allowed to endure.

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