Should freedom of expression include the license to offend?

  • Because Isis is dumb

    Lolololololololol lolololol lolo llolo l lo lololl o olollo lo lo lo lo lollo ollool lolo lololololollolol olol ol lo l lo lololollolo l lll l lololol ollo lolo l lo lo l olol l ol l lolollololol l lolo lolol ol l lo l ol ol ool ol lol

  • Because Isis is dumb

    Lolololololololol lolololol lolo llolo l lo lololl o olollo lo lo lo lo lollo ollool lolo lololololollolol olol ol lo l lo lololollolo l lll l lololol ollo lolo l lo lo l olol l ol l lolollololol l lolo lolol ol l lo l ol ol ool ol lol

  • N ,nnn,m rm

    B b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b

  • It should be personal

    Whilst the government does not have a right to ban certain viewpoints or to prevent people from saying certain things, I believe people have a personal moral responsibility to decide whether the (perhaps hateful and offensive) things they have to say will cause harm. If I am about to say something racist, I should consider whether the repercussions of what I say will cause a higher level of harm to others, or whether the amount of harm it would cause me to keep those thoughts to myself is greater. The answer to this question is almost always 'yes' for offensive things, and as a result, I believe it would be better for people to not say these certain things. Overall I believe whilst legally we should have the right to say whatever we want, we as individuals, must consider whether these contributions are beneficial to society, and therefore decide whether or not to say them.

  • Only if we are talking about freedom in a legal sense.

    Freedom of speech should be protected from governmental persecution, and only such. Outside of legal situations, you cannot say anything you want without expecting verbal repercussions from your fellow man. You have the freedom to say whatever ignorant and bigoted opinion you want, and I have that same freedom to tell you how stupid you sound. Using freedom of speech as an excuse for your stupidity isn't a valid excuse

  • Freedom of expression is essential

    In a liberal, Western democracy there are countless practices, beliefs, ideas and cultures. The chances are that most people will be offended by something at some stage, but they must understand that unless their is a physical threat to their safety they simply should accept that others have the right to express themselves as they see fit. Freedom of speech and expression presumes that opinions and points of view are involved, and any opinion can be perceived as offensive. It is a fundamental right that we can say what we please, fully understanding the consequences.

  • Yes, because otherwise the shield is the sword.

    Yes, freedom of expression should include the license to offend, because not allowing people to offend others with free speech would be the same as allowing one person to censor another's speech. There will always be someone who can claim that they are offended by another person's speech, in order to censor that person.

  • Yes verbally offending

    Someone should not be thought as a crime and those who find themselves seriously resigned and affected by insults especially over the anonymous / internet should instead go and seek that all decisive professional help. If you're in a photo manipulation situation (your face has been chopped over somebody or something else) the content and trigger all originates from you. If you lay low, never open your mouth and especially never post images of yourself, you will not find yourself in such circumstances. Getting feedback on your expression is always part of the deal. For some people offending others is a cathardic way to take out their aggression over the situation. Some people want to cause annoyance and resentment, this is sad but nothing we can do about if we want to aim for an all conclusive society. For some people the reaction is just plain humour and everything should be a fair game for humour.

  • It must.

    Regrettably, while offending people is generally bad, freedom of expression must include the license to offend, else it's not really freedom of expression. Someone can always feign offense to a minority view, then BAM! The view gets shut up because they can't offend in their expression. If we expect there to be any sort of freedom of expression, it must include the license to offend, else that can become a slippery slope down the wrong path.

  • Yes, freedom of expression includes the license to offend. The constitution affordthis right without limitation.

    Yes, freedom of expression includes the license to offend. There are no limitations on freedom of expression. A moral argument can be made about whether offensiveness is right or wrong but this is not the same as restricting one's expression because it is offensive. The constitution guarantees this right so no person should be censored because they are offensive.

  • Freedom not disturbance

    Having your own view is good and speaking in the front of everyone to express your views is good but to hurt others while your freedom is not good. The other people are your society persons that are also allowed to express their thoughts. The freedom do not include offend.

  • No, freedom of expression should include the right to criticise not to offend

    Offend means to deliberately go out of your way to make others feel upset and resentful. To criticise means to point out faults in someone or something in a disapproving fashion. It is possible to criticise without having to offend anyone. True theres a fine line between these two things but i personally feel that it is wrong to go out of your way to make someone feel upset and you can say what you feel in such a way that it doesn't upset people.

  • I disagree with having the right to offend

    Giving offence only undermines our social good. It does this not just by imitating discrimination and violence, but also by re-incarnating an evil nightmare which once attacked out society. It's like putting environmental threat with word peace, although we know we will never have world peace until things, such as these factors stop.

  • Both.

    Freedom of expression/speech does mean that anyone can technically say anything. However, if it something on an extreme level like death threats or pure racism, then things of that nature should not be allowed. Some people will view it as like others have said before, hatred or hate crimes. What it should be is in moderation. Nothing extreme like threatning to kill someone or racist, or both at the same time. Morally stuff like that is wrong, and will cause an enormous amount of issues all over.

  • No it should not.

    Just because someone can express themselves freely does not mean another person can insult them freely. They are two different things and you cannot compare them like this. It will promote hatred and fights could emerge if it actually happened. The only way it could be true is if someones points were completely irrational in everybody's mind.

  • No - It Is Wrong To Offend Deliberately

    No, freedom of expression should not include the license to offend. There is a difference between freedom of expression and offending. People are becoming openly cruel and hateful and hiding it under the “freedom of expression” umbrella. Everyone has the right to express themselves, but not at the expense of someone else. People who find it acceptable to be offensive need to seek professional help.

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