In all areas of debate, the limiting of thought or speech determines the limits to who wins and looses. By saying that "you don't get to say whatever you want" by it's very nature is an argument to limit an argument. Free speech does not mean you get to stay safe, nor does it mean that you are not going to be challenged. You do not get to choose the veracity of the challenge. So racist hate speech is horrible but because we have that we have the opposition. Loose one and you will loose the other.
It must be absolute otherwise, there is no such thing as free speech. Currently here is no free speech anywhere. Freedom of speech and the respect thereof should include hate, yelling fire in a crowded theater, and threats. Because if you limit those, you also limit the other side as well. You can vigorously disagree, but you cannot punish someone for saying words...Otherwise there is no freedom.
Irregardless of any other thought or notion contrary, and despite any perceived possibility or actuality of harm, the first amendment is absolute and has no exceptions, exemptions or limitations. No congress, no legislature and no incorporation has authority to regulate the protections of the first amendment. Even national convention could not convene to change the amendment to abridge freedom of speech because the bodies have no authority to regulate the speech.
Freedom of speech needs to be absolute to bulwark the potential horrors Orwell took so much time to articulate. In the first place, it is impossible to determine what is "offensive" since that is such a subjective term. It goes without saying that people will disagree in perpetuity as to what they determine to be offensive or not - and if one's freedom to not be offended should supersede one's freedom to offend.
In the second place, screaming "fire!" in a movie theatre is a red herring argument. I would contend the "screaming" piece to this recipe to be the more dangerous piece. Ask yourself, should it be prohbited to nudge your friend and mumble "fire" in a movie theatre? I argue no. Should it be prohibited to stand in a movie theatre and scream any innocous word at all? I'd argue - probably yes! The problem here isn't speech. It's a problem of noise ordinance, disruptance, and perhaps deception.
The details matter. And I think you can always find some piece to the recipe of arguing against speech where the key variable is something other than speech itself.
We should beware of speech being spew out from our mouth. Some speech are placed in a thin line between being harmonious and a discordant community. We have to be sensitive with your speech and the choice of words, those speech will sparks discordant between community. Degrading one's ideology or community will upset one another and cause mayhem or even devastating consequences that none of us are able to be responsible for it.
However, freedom are speech are allowed to a certain extent by using the proper channel, the choice of words and also a sentimental-less speech.
Words are not rocks nor are they leaves
words belong at CERN, where tiny particles can be two places at once,
words can mean many things to different generations of people.
What words mean are all ways changing
change what words means, control the masses.
That is what the american government is doing
The only time it can be limited is when you are making a threat to someone. Other than that, even the dumbest most bigoted hate speech is a right of every human being. We cannot allow ourselves to go down the path Europe has gone down in censoring people who say things that are offensive.
How can you just restrict freedom of speech which is a fundamental freedom and right of people..People have right to say whatever they want ,just because of handful of person who do misuse freedom of speech you cannot restrict it.What's the point of having such freedom if many restrictions are there...
Freedom of speech is absolute. Who is to say what can and can't be said. Placing rules over freedom of speech is not freedom of speech. Anyone who says so is completely wrong since not being able to say something freely, is not freely saying something. If you live in a country that places limitations on speech, then it is not a democracy since oneside can silence the other. China is a perfect example of this.
One should be able to say anything as long as it does not make untrue claims in an attempt to demote someone in the eyes of society (defamation) or directly threaten violence. While some opinions are abjectly wrong, banning these extremely offensive words or phrases is banning an opinion, which should never be done in a public forum.
Free speech is often misconstrued to mean we can say anything about anyone at anytime. This is false. People have the freedom from being misled about a fire in a crowded theater, they have the freedom from being libeled, and they have the freedom from being slandered. Of course, free speech is broad, as to allow for the burning of flags and for "hate speech." However, it is a mistake to say "free speech is absolute."
It is sure that freedom of speech and expression should be preserved to prevent the society and nations from exploiting the power of system. However, there also should be some regulation regarding this freedom in order for the society or nations not to fall into chaos. That's because not all the people are civilized with proper common knowledge, for which there are no absolute criteria.
It is a "limited right" under the US Constitution.
- It's founding addressed government censorship, and paving the path for the Revolutionary war. (Prevention of the oppression they felt they left in England.)
- Now. It's extends to many forms, uses and circumstances. And continues today but is very subject to limitations.
It is a "limited right" under the US Constitution.
- it's founding began against government censorship, and citizens ability to question. (A safeguard from the oppression they felt they left in England and to be able to move onto the Revolutionary war)
- now, extends to many circumstances. But still subject to a vast list of limitations.
Freedom of speech is a limited conventional right. What this means is that there are some situations where the right can be restricted. This right commonly clashes with another human right; the right to privacy. This clash can clearly be seen in relation to journalism. When an article names celebrities and included something about their family life the celebrity has an argument to say that this infringes on their right to privacy. The right to free speech can then be taken away in this situation as to protect the celebrities right to privacy.
Considering freedom of speech as absolute is considering all people act the same, and share the same values, which is utopia. Whether we like it or not nothing is absolute, and we set values to make sure everybody knows when to stop. My freedom stops when it starts hurting yours, and vice versa. That being said, setting limits to freedom of speech can be very tricky, as it can definitely limit freedom and tailor it according to one's preferences, which definitely kill freedom of speech. It is a thin but clear line that must always be considered. Freedom of speech stops when it hurts others values and limit their freedom, only. Otherwise, everybody is entitled to freedom of speech, as freedom in general. Words are not just vocabulary, they are images and thoughts, that lead to action, and action can be violent and dangerous. We are very diverse, and we get the messages differently, so we need to set values, not limits.
If you have an opinion of something and say it out loud you can be punished in a few different ways. Even if its just one time and you are not harassing anyone without verbal warnings certain people and certain entities may not like it and turn on you for in a few different styles. I am not saying it should be like this but this is my belief
There are just some things we do not say, due to moral reasons and due to other reasons. Technically we are allowed to fart in a crowded lift but we do not do so, and when we do, we do not expect everyone to fart with us in solidarity. This goes same for free speech. Just as the lift example I gave, we do not fart due to moral reasons, there are certain things we just do not say out of moral reasons and other reasons. Everyone is entitled to an opinion. But with rights, come responsibilities so if we do say something we must be aware of the consequences of it and not be surprised when it attracts negative criticism. In law, no right is absolute, except the right to life. And there are many justifications for this. For the protection of the greater public and prevent disputes in the public, free speech is limited and should stay that way.
No you don't because you can say some things but some things you cant say with out consequences so some of the things you do you could get in a lot of trouble if you had freedom of speech than you could say what you want with out getting in trouble so that means we don't have freedom of speech.
In this society many people get offended more. Certain things are socially unacceptable in this world you can go ahead and say whatever you want but remember the consequences and how it could effect somebody in a mental or physically way. Cause if you go to some one and say your gonna kill them they will probably get paranoid and some people will even kill themselves so you cant even tho you were just kidding.