I think we should limit freedom of speech and expression.Although i agree very much that freedom bring so many benefit to our society but living in the freedom country doesn't mean you can do anything what you want without rules?Freedom of speech should be limit because otherwise people will use this chance to abuse people such as bullying.Don't mix freedom of speech with hate speech.People can express their opinion as they want but not hurting other people with words.Freedom of expression should be considered as freedom of speech as well.
This seems to be about freedom of speech, because of the picture. There are reasonable limitations on freedom of speech. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exceptions ) I see a lot of opinions here indicating that most people don't want limits on free speech, but just give that freedom to people and see what they'll do with it - They'll defraud, defame, divulge, incite, threaten, bribe, etc.
The 1st Amendment states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
This is talking mostly about freedom of religion, and after that it says that people will have the right to PEACEFULLY assemble and to petition the government. It nevers says that all speech is protected, and not all should be. People can come up with some terrible things to say, and unless these carry a valid opinion they should be blocked.
Don't get me wrong; I'm not for limiting expression to protect the interests of the ruling class. I don't believe in censoring news articles and sending journalists in prison for revealing the government's wrongdoings or expressing a dissenting opinion. Yet if free speech ends up harming society, there must be a limit to it. Rights and responsibilities come hand in hand and if you are shown to be irresponsible when you exercise your rights. They ought to be limited. Hate speech isn't the only example, either. Holocaust denial, misleading advertisements, etc. are all examples of speech that ought to be banned.
This is called Rights Maximization.
The fact is, if we could say whatever we want, and we say things like a specific group of people are bad people, than that will make them feel bad and not say anything, limiting their free speech. If this is what is takes to make people happy, by making them suffer, I feel that it is infinitely shameful that humans have shrank in honour to such a degree that we need to watch people suffer and say hateful things because people said this is a "right" and we are allowed to do this.
If we make physical and sexual abuse illegal so why not make the same to emotional abuse and cyber abuse ??All kind of abuse is seriously harmful to victim and therefore the law should get prevent this.Also i would say make cyber bully as felony crime not only a misdemeanor.
Think about what would happen if everyone have unlimited freedom and can do anything what they want without or very less strict laws?Then we would end up in anarchy.I agree that everyone deserve to get freedom but people should not have right to abuse freedom or take away freedom of others.
Everybody love freedom, of course, me too but it seems necessary to limit freedom in certain boundery and circumstance. In reality, not everyone is mature or has same perception, many crazy or selfish people might take advantage of liberty to do things harm or disturb others, therefore, there needs to have some limitation to behave people unless all are respect eachother and complteley nice and take no wrong action or take advantage of the freedom to do wrobg things... In reality, howmany people will be such nice ?
Living in democratic country everyone deserve to get equal freedom but this does not mean anyone can do anything what they want without limitation.At least we should limit certain act that harm others.Such as i would say stalking and cyberharrassment should be unacceptable and illegal in all state because it's harmful.
Look at human nature, given the chance there are many of us that would cheat, lie, and steal from one another. That's why we have laws in place. Laws in a sense limit freedom. I hate to say it but human beings require constant management to allow society to function.
The First Amendment says that we as people of America, have the right of free speech. Not, KINDA free speech, just plain... Free... Speech...
Since when did America have a limit? That's like Kim Jong Un and him saying North Korea simply has "a limit" on free speech and the people there aren't not allowed to say anything of hatred. Including anything against himself.
Is that really right? Isn't that the same exact thing?
What I really don't understand about people arguing against hate speech is that they don't realize just how condescending they sound. Take, for example, an anti-gay speech. Some people may find it offensive, some people may agree with the speech, but nobody has the right to stifle it simply because they don't agree with it and/or take offense at it. If the law worked this way, people could quite literally take offense at the most mundane things such as an anti-lamp speech, and all of a sudden, anti-lamp speeches are labeled as hate speech. Also, and most importantly, people, specifically the government, could use this to stifle anti-government speeches because they are now deemed "too offensive". People will always argue, and people will always disagree, but disagreement is healthy, and even if disagreements may become toxic, complete censorship of one side is far more poisonous.
Don't you find it ironic that you are allowed to post the opinion that we should limit free speech on a website available to the public without fear of persecution, even though most people don't agree with what you say? Episteme said it really well, you are either free, or you're not. There is no "freedom with the government's exception to them".
Freedom is sortof an all or nothing deal. If you're limited in what you can say, you're not free to say anything you want to, you're limited to saying those things that are permissible. I'm not saying that it's a bad thing to to ensure that no one incites violence, but people have to realise that it's no longer a 'freedom' if they are only permitted to say certain things.
It may be a bad part of having free speech ... But thats what you get when you say free, the good, bad, and ugly. Revel though in knowing that you can freely combat that form of speech with your own brand of speech. You aren't making things worse by allowing it to exist, only if you decide to perpetuate it yourself when given the choice to do so.
To start limiting freedoms is a never ending slippery slope. Over time government always reduce liberty and they never restore it. That is why principles need to be in place instead of an evolving set of rules.
Who would we trust to decide what speech is acceptable? Seems like an impossible thing to implement. Such thinking is dangerous .... I have to think a lot of very young, inexperienced people are saying YES.
Give me a break...This question and argument is only conducive to overly emotional morons incapable of logic and reason. Well, if you can say we should limit freedom because words offend you, then I say I'm offended by not being able to have the freedom to say offensive things, should I choose. Since I'm offended by the concept of "restricted freedom", then we need to have full freedom.
Doesn't matter how you approach it...Anyone trying to control what you say/think is why evil exists in the world...Period. But..But..Bad, offensive words cause people to riot and get upset... No, your dumb*** chooses to act and be offended...Quit passing the blame to excuse your own actions...Pathetic waste of life.
Abuse can come in many forms, and that includes verbal. However, the notion that a person should be censored because they flatly disagree with your opinions overlooks the simple point that your point of view may be very insulting to their sensibilities. If freedoms are limited, who gets to decide the 'acceptable' point of view? Now, hateful, degrading, spiteful speech has virtually no profitable place in society, but drawing the line will only set precedents that will limit everyones freedom in the long run. At the end of the day, most negative and hateful talk could be limited significantly if it were simply ignored. Stop allowing people to bait you into arguments, that is mostly what they are trying to do.
Just because someone says something hurtful or threatening does not mean it is going to stop if the ability is limited. You can change peoples rights but you can not change their views and ideas. It may start out as one small restriction but it will blossom more and more becoming into one single individual mind, and if you disagree with that mind you are punished.
I do not think freedom should be limited for the following reasons
1.Freedom allows people to make change in there life therefore if that is restricted people can not change as much in there life to benefit themselves or others leading to people being less of individuals and more like sheep just following what people in power say all the time.
2.Freedom of speech allows people to express there beliefs on an issue which can spread awareness on the effects of an issue also freedom of speech covers protesting or ranting on mistakes in society to help make changes to better society.
3. The right to bear arms which covers people defending themselves from criminals or overthrowing a corrupt government that controls oppresses the citizens which if those freedoms are limited than people can not defend themselves from criminals or overthrow a corrupt government in the case of a government oppressing the freedoms of the citizens.