The free speech of individuals and groups can be limited not just through law, but through social norms. The angry reaction of a crowd or the boycott of a product in relation to hate speech are both forms of limitation on free speech. When those limitations should be taken up by authorities is when the speech in question begins to degrade the quality of life of those it is targeting.
Yes, I think there are instances in which free speech should be restricted or limited, because there are times when the freedom of speech is disturbing. For example, a person shouldn't be allowed to shut down a major highway in order to stage a protest. A person shouldn't be allowed to enter onto private property.
I definitely think that there are instances where free speech should be limited and restricted. I think that while it is important for Americans to support free speech and people's freedoms and rights, there are situations where it can be harmful. For instance, people do not have the right to yell FIRE in a crowded theater.
Free speech is a wonderful thing, but there are people today who believe that they have the right to say whatever they think to whoever they want. A lack of common sense and mutual respect for fellow human beings. The way free speech is viewed today, is that we all should have the right to stop someone in the street, and to insult them for their faith, gender, race, sexuality or whatever reason we can find in our minds.
Hateful and phobic remarks don't help us advance as a species. The only to stop racism or other forms of prejudice is to stamp in out at the roots. For instance, if I wanted to, I could post a status on Facebook for the world to see that read: "America is the worse country in the world. Americans are dumb and how no idea about the world they live in apart from McDonald's and guns. If America didn't exist, the world would be a better place!". I am allowed to post this to Facebook despite it spewing hate and malice for the USA, and over a billion people could read. This would be an awful post to put up anywhere and many Americans would take huge offense to it. So if you feel that I shouldn't be allowed to say this then you can't say that you are for no restrictions on free speech.
After the Charlie Hebdo attacks in Paris, Pope Francis said "if my good friend...Says a curse word against my mother, he can expect a punch. It's normal. You cannot provoke." It was also following these attacks in Paris that they French government introduced anti-hate-speech laws in France. Laws that prevent people from publicly insulting another persons faith, race, sexuality etc. through through the written or spoken word. While this may be an encroachment on freedom of expression, it is necessary to stop hate from spreading.
We all fall into some category that receives hate from another category, be it gay, muslim, black, christian, female, or stripper. It should be common sense to keep your hateful thoughts in our mind, and not publicly bash these people for their beliefs or interests. Expressing your opposition to these interests are fine but once they are done in a way that doesn't spread hate or disdain.
We've seen what happens when people with free speech are allowed to say whatever they want, and the outcome can, and often has gone further than a fiery debate on the news. It can lead to people being killed. And until people learn what common courtesy and respect for their fellow human beings are, they need the law to tell them.
Yes, I believe there are times when free speech should be restricted or limited. People should have the sense and common courtesy to know when free speech has overstepped and become hateful or cruel. We should know when to stop, but sometimes we just don't seem to realize we are hurting others.
Freedom of speech is an essential right to every individual. EVERY individual. Not just the ones you like. People are allowed to voice their opinions, no matter how much you might agree or disagree. However, there are a few instances in which this right has to be regulated in order to preserve the peace and the wellbeing of others. If the individual in question is intentionally calling harassment or violence against a person or persons, then that speech should be restricted, as it is the catalyst bringing about a potential crime. The same can be said for overly-disturbing (for lack of a better descriptor) speech in the presence of children, following the same logic as indecent exposure laws.
When speaking of free speech, we are speaking to expression of opinions, not imposing that speech on others against their will.
So, if you make a statement that a person is a horrible human being, as is done on a regular basis in the media, in casual conversation, all over the place, then you are fine. If you, instead, follow that person around, badgering them about the fact that they are a terrible human being, shaming them, violating their privacy, imposing on them after they have made it obvious that they do not want to engage with you, then you are engaging in harassment.
You have a right to speak, you don't have a right to be heard.
Most of the arguments i've seen have been about when speech hurts peoples feelings. No one cares if it hurts your feelings just get over it. The other part of what I've read is either simply illegal or going way to far. And besides, the bill of rights was written in 1791. Who are we to change over 200 years of American civilization. Plus why should anyone get into any sort of trouble for saying whats on they're mind?
I do not believe there are certain instances where free speech should be restricted or limited. This creates a slippery slope where people end up being censored for viable points of view. Yes, there are people out there with opinions that are exactly the opposite of yours. That doesn't mean the other persons point of view should be restricted or limited.