People should have the right to say what ever they want to a point. We all are entitled to our rights, but in our society, we should know the difference between right and wrong. What I mean is, people should know the difference between being rude and supporting their opinion.
Freedom of speech is being able to speak your mind, and it is specifically centered around government issues. It is a basic right under the Constitution. Back in the day when British was ruling our little colony, there was no way to speak our mind - which is why freedom of speech was invented. There is always going to be rude people. We have no control over that. When we DIDN'T have freedom of speech there were rude people. We can't give up our basic, fundamental, Constitutional rights because we are worried about some people who are rude.
Of course freedom of speech should be protected. 1800s there was a famous quote "No taxation without representation". England was taxing the 13 colonies and the Colonies wanted to have a say in the rules if they were going to be taxed. Elijah Lovejoy died over the freedom of press and speech. So did Martin Luther King Jr. Even the Boston Massacre had a tie with the freedom of speech. And were just goanna let all those deaths be for nothing? This website probably would be here if we didn't have freedom of speech. If the freedom of speech is gone, than what has this country gone to?
It is one of the most fundamental rights granted by our nation's founding documents. The First Amendment is what TRULY makes the United States a free nation- the right to say as you please, to criticize the government as you please, without fear of imprisonment or censorship by that government.
To allow free speech to fall to the wayside is the first step on a very slippery slope to oppression and tyranny.
YES! AT ALL COSTS! Even hate speech! They are words people! I am so freaked out that there are so many people who thinks it's more important to protect babies from words than it is to protect ourselves from tyranny! Jesus effing Christ on a stick. Everyone who needs protection from words needs to just move to Europe where peoples homes are being raided by police for speaking out against political policies on immigration. It's a very slick slope. What is wrong with you people! THEY ARE WORDS. Sticks and effing stones, remember!?!?!?!
Our ability to have the freedom of speech allows us to state our thoughts, ideas, opinions and freely express ourselves not just verbally but also via writing. But with this right, there are consequences which some have legal repercussions which are dictated by laws and other are by the actions of others that are a direct result of what is said or written. It is our "job" as human beings to regulate our freedom of speech with well balanced intention and that which is for the benefit of all people, not just our self serving attitudes and desires.
The freedom of speech must be protected at all costs, as it is the basis of our democracy. As an American citizen, we each have the God-given right to say what we believe. However, just because we have the right to say whatever we think, doesn't mean that we should get away with saying it. If you say something stupid or offensive, I have every right to point out that you are being stupid, and if you continuously offend people, eventually you will get punched in the face.
One should be able to stand up for one's own opinions because it is a slippery slope once we start to censor that. On the other hand, freedom of speech should not mean that we are allowed to threaten others or voice pure hate, so there need to be some limitations.
Free speech is limited because you can say whatever it is that you would like to say as long as it does not impose on another person's rights or slander or libel another person. Free speech does not give you the right to copy the work of other people. It also does not give you the right to plan a crime (that is conspiracy) or to commit treason. It does not give you the right to make threats of illegal acts. It does not give the right to intentionally cause harm by panic (you can't shout "bomb" in the subway). It does not give the right to interfere with the normal workings of government and industry (for example, you can't walk into the DMV and start screaming political slogans; you also can't shout down your teacher in school.)
There is no acceptable reason to censor opinions in the public.
Even against hate speech. What gives you, or the government, the power to decide what ideas are unacceptable? To decide what opinion can be voiced, and what opinion must be silenced?
Censorship, I would argue, is a slippery slope, leading directly (although slowly) to totalitarianism.
All of us can be affected by many reasons if freedom of speech was protected at all cost. To begin with, bullying would increase in society. Since u can say what ever u want, bullies can use this to bully others with no one stopping them. Lastly, gender and racial discrimination would continue in society due to this. Everyone can say anything to each other because for whom they are and etc.
Let me link this to a scenario.
There is a trial, where a person is accusing another person of murder.
The accused is indeed guilty, but the attorney manages to get him off as innocent.
Later, when the attorney is being asked questions, and the attorney has information that can change the ruling of the trial, the attorney, under the Attorney-Client Privilege, doesn't release this information, thus releasing a murderer back into our country.
Of course, this is but one of many examples, but this is a big one.
The safety of our country is threatened by the freedom of speech.
Of course, to some degree, the freedom must be kept, but not at ALL costs.
Bullying would increase in the society and more and more people would get cyber bullied, targeting teenager girls at the age of 15 leading to more sucide deaths and the population decreasing. Everyone and anyone can say anything they want to anybody with out having the fear of getting threatened
Coause we ardd fam...Whatever it is that you would like to say as long as it does not impose on another person's rights or slander or libel another person. Free speech does not give you the right to copy the work of other people. It also does not give you the right to plan a crime (that is conspiracy) or to commit treason. It does not give you the right to make threats of illegal acts. It does not give the right to intentionally cause harm by panic (you can't shout "bomb" in the subway). It does not give the right to interfere with the normal workings of government and industry (for example, you can't walk into the DMV and start screaming political slogans; you also can't shout down your teacher in school
Freedom of speech is an important foundation of America and allows for open debate. It promotes growth and helps keep our government in check by people being informed. However, singleing out a specific person or group to promote violence is not freedom of speech. It is promoting hatred and a specific agenda.
Safety is the freedom to exist without harm, and that is the most basic right of all humans: to remain without harm. Important state secrets may compromise a nation's security, and may lead to violation of this ultimate human right of safety. Hence, freedom of speech should be NOT protected at all cost.
The SCOTUS interpretation of "free speech" definitely should not be protected. According to their convoluted logic, "free speech" is allowing plutocrats and oligarchs to buy out public elections. If we continue to insist on protecting this kind of "free speech", then it wont be long before there is no free speech or freedom of anything else, for that matter.
There are some reasonable limits that can be made on free speech that shouldnt be challenged at all costs.... Censoring curse words or nudity on television is justifiable, not being able to yell 'fire!' in a crowded movie theater and cause a subsequent stampede is reasonable, not having a Nazi rally march through a primarily Jewish neighborhood is reasonable....... There are a handful of justified reasons to restrict free speech and those scenarios shouldnt be fought against 'at all costs' just for the sake of freedom of speech......