Amazon.com Widgets
  • Yes its important

    The definition of freedom doesn't mean you can do anything you want without rules but it means you can do everything want you without being absolute control.People should use the advantage of freedom in a good way.Free speech is possible can change to hate speech if you don't have an limit on that.To express your opinion its good but you also should know what's right or wrong.

  • What would it be like if we did not have limits to Freedom Of Expression?

    Freedom Of Expression should have limits. Without limits, what would this world be like? We would have people in class, work, on the streets, and anywhere else just speaking their mind at a unnecessary time. With limits, we would get the necessary feedback and opinions we need that will help us have a better environment.

  • Yes there should be limits on free speech, in some cases.

    People have the right to say what they want but they shouldn't abuse that right. Some people call the free speech case because they feel they aren't being able to say what they want. But then, there are the people that pull the free speech card because they don't know what they're talking about. Those people are the reason were having this debate. They say their freedom of speech is being abused because they can't curse someone out. Those people are irresponsible citizens.

  • Yes there should be limits on free speech, in some cases.

    People have the right to say what they want but they shouldn't abuse that right. Some people call the free speech case because they feel they aren't being able to say what they want. But then, there are the people that pull the free speech card because they don't know what they're talking about. Those people are the reason were having this debate. They say their freedom of speech is being abused because they can't curse someone out. Those people are irresponsible citizens.

  • Neutral (yes/ no)

    During the past 2 weeks my intro to mass media and I have had a discussion in class about the Charlie Hebdo. The case was that should there be limits on the freedon of speech?! Professor divided class into 2 group (pro and con). I was to the pro group, that there should be limits in the freedom of speech. I meant that people have the right to say whatever they want till they do not offend sb else. But when I go home I stARTED thinking more. All countries have TV channels that that make jokes, and try to get someone's face/personality, especially known(famous) people such as, politicians, actors ect. So, these channel or more specified these programs try to turn others faces into ridiculous ones in order to make the audience laughing so that they can make money in this way. Cuz' this is their job/profession. This example is "similar" with the newspaper of Charlie Hebdo. All I wanted to say is that should these tv channels be banned or stop? Imagine your life without having/ making funn?! It would be like a black & white imagine, without colors. To conclude, I want to say that people should have the right to make funn with theirselves + others, but they should try to not offend them. There must have a limit on the freedom of speech but not directly. That limit should be a small "piece" of having respect for important + religious things/objects...

  • Yes yes yes

    We are nyet perfect Even if it is human nature to feel superior over someone else what would happen if you take that too far? To far, meaning that you make that person feel not wanted in this world. There has been many cases where people have used the "freedom of speech" card and took it overboard. Free speech should have a certain limitation to it. Where you can still say what you want, but not so much where as you can hurt someone. Yes, we are human, but that doesn't mean that we can just say whatever we want and not have a consequence to it. We as human beings should try and stop hurting people with words, not to come up with a new ways to put them down. Sure, we are not perfect, but then again nothing is. We can at least try to stop hate speech, because sometimes it might be too late before someone realizes the damage they have done. Even if it does take a long time to try and stop hate speech, it will be worth waiting for. We can hope to stop hate speech, logically speaking I don't think that we humans will fully eradicate it.

  • Yes yes yes

    We are nyet perfect Even if it is human nature to feel superior over someone else what would happen if you take that too far? To far, meaning that you make that person feel not wanted in this world. There has been many cases where people have used the "freedom of speech" card and took it overboard. Free speech should have a certain limitation to it. Where you can still say what you want, but not so much where as you can hurt someone. Yes, we are human, but that doesn't mean that we can just say whatever we want and not have a consequence to it. We as human beings should try and stop hurting people with words, not to come up with a new ways to put them down. Sure, we are not perfect, but then again nothing is. We can at least try to stop hate speech, because sometimes it might be too late before someone realizes the damage they have done. Even if it does take a long time to try and stop hate speech, it will be worth waiting for. We can hope to stop hate speech, logically speaking I don't think that we humans will fully eradicate it.

  • Of course they need limitations!!!

    Freedom of speech needs limitations or this world will go crazy. Everybody will think that theres no rules for the freedom of speech and everybody will be going around yelling and screaming at people about the stupidest things and using cuss words. At schools the kids will stand up and "speak their mind" as they would say because if the teacher said something "wrong" to the students the kids would take advantage of the freedom of speech rule. In conclusion we should have limitations on the freedom of speech debacle.

  • You are free to speak your mind, but it does not mean you should speak your mind freely.

    In civilized and free societies, nobody controls what ones may say but the speakers themselves.

    Just like nobody should tell a mother her child is ugly. You wouldn't tell your neighbor his God is stupid. Yet no matter what other says to you, you have absolutely no excuse to hit him in the face.

    I believe the same principles that make us good neighbors would make our world a better place to live too.

  • Having limits on our Freedom of Speech is only human and natural

    By thinking before opening our mouths we naturally are putting limits on our freedom of speech. But a few even though knowing something shouldn't be said says it any ways just to get a rise of people and those people sometimes need limits otherwise we should just let a kid be a kid and they can turn into anything.

  • No restrictions because you can say what you want

    It is a law which says you can say what you want without any restrictions or limits. Why should there be limits? No need for that,
    is your own risk if you go to far and get into troubles. People make fun of each other they all do, and therefore there shouldn't be restrictions or limits

  • We are human

    All I have to say is that we are humans. If hate speech is censored then we as human being will create a new slang to insult someone or put someone down. Its human nature to feel superior over another. In all honestly haters gonna hate either with words or bats. There is an old saying "If you give a person a foot ( as in a measurement not an actually foot) they will take a mile". That works both ways of the arguement. It's human nature to whether it would be the use of freedom of speech or something else. Its in our nature to take things too far. The founding fathers had to of realized this and I'm sure most of them used "hate speech" just as much as any other human would.

  • Censorship is wrong

    Censorship is wrong because it stultifies the amount of ideas that can be posed, understood, challenged, or adopted. Our right to hear limitless ideas and opinions is as important as peoples right to express them. The world is richer by allowing unencumbered discourse and debate, it is woefully ironic to suggest otherwise on this website.

  • No there should not be limits on freedom of speech.

    As our constitution states in my own words we are allowed to speak freely our minds without fear of prosecution, so that mans that there should be no limit to our options to freely speak. It allows us to speak up against unjust policies, impeach our own president if need be, and run the country with an open mind instead of a closed fist.

  • I think that it's pointless

    What's the point of having free speech if we have rules on it. Just because the people we are talking about gets offended maybe they should change what we are criticizing them on, so then they wouldn't get butt hurt. Plus if your a important person in society you should know that there would be people like this and get a grip.

  • It will cause conflicts if there's no limitation.

    If there's no limits, people can express there feelings freely, but sometimes people might say negative things about each other. People might even insult others. This will cause a lot of conflicts. For instance, the Charlie magazine in France said something negative about the Islam, so the IS attacked and killed people. This was a conflict caused by free speech without limits.
    The freedom of speech should be limited due to privacy. National secrets can't be revealed, because it might influence the country's safety. Commercial secrets shouldn't be spread, because it might influence the company's benefits.
    For the above mentioned reasons, there SHOULD be limits on freedom of speech.

  • Because we are becoming little bitches and need to suck it up

    Suck it up stop crying about what other people say this is important because we used to be tough but now we take everything to heart and that's not what america was founded on we were founded on freedom not laws to stop us from saying things we just need to toughen up

  • The only possible reason for limits is based on opinion

    Why do we limit freedom of speech right now? Because a group of people decided that letting people say anything didn't align with the beliefs of that group. Saying "You may not lie in public" ("There is no constitutional value in false statements of fact") is bad enough (1+1=3; YOU'RE UNDER ARREST!), but who's to say what's a lie and what's the truth? The people who, if it was true, would have a vested interest in keeping it hidden? The people who are manipulated by the former group?

  • We couldn't develop

    As we only change our opinions on things by hearing other points of view if we had restrictions on speech then the black community would probably still be considered 2nd class and homosexuals considered mentally ill if not evil. Points that seem radical and extreme now may be accepted tomorrow but only through freedom of speech.

  • We couldn't develop

    As we only change our opinions on things by hearing other points of view if we had restrictions on speech then the black community would probably still be considered 2nd class and homosexuals considered mentally ill if not evil. Points that seem radical and extreme now may be accepted tomorrow but only through freedom of speech.


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