Amazon.com Widgets
  • Regulation is necessary

    People are going out making hateful comments and using freedom of speech as a shield. Freedom of speech was used to politely criticize the government, Not to be a hateful extremist. The government should regulate it so that hateful violent people don’t use it to their advantage, People should politely address their concerns rather than talking about horrific ideas.

  • Freedom of speech should be limited:

    . Children need limits and boundaries to be safe and secured.
    If a person has the freedom to go out, That doesn’t mean a person is out till midnight, If a person has the freedom to use gadgets that doesn’t mean the person will use gadgets all the day, If a person has the freedom to do shopping that doesn’t mean the person will start wasting money. That is why freedom should be limited. Yes, No good! Its common sense. "Shakespeare once said to trust only a few. This is because humans cannot be trusted to make good decisions with unlimited freedom. Freedom is a dangerous thing without limitations, Because people would not be given justice. "freedoms should only be taken from a man when his personal choices are at all.

  • It's already limited

    Freedom of speech does not permit someone to yell "FIRE" in a crowded movie theater. Freedom of speech also does not prevent punishment for conduct that intimidates, Harasses, Or threatens another person. Threatening phone calls, For example, Are not constitutionally protected. These are things that can result in your being punished by the government (fines, Jail, Etc. ).

    What the government CAN'T do, Though, Is fine or jail you simply for speaking publicly about an idea that's unpopular. The American Civil Liberties Union has often been at the center of controversy for defending the free speech rights of groups that spew hate, Such as the Ku Klux Klan and the Nazis. But if only popular ideas were protected, We wouldn't need a First Amendment. History teaches that the first target of government repression is never the last. If we do not come to the defense of the free speech rights of the most unpopular among us (even if their views are antithetical to the very freedom the First Amendment stands for), Then no one's liberty will be secure. In that sense, All First Amendment rights are "indivisible. "

    Censoring so-called "hate speech" also runs counter to the long-term interests of the most frequent victims of hate: racial, Ethnic, Religious and sexual minorities. We should not give the government the power to decide which opinions are hateful, For history has taught us that government is more apt to use this power to prosecute minorities than to protect them. As one federal judge has put it, Tolerating hateful speech is "the best protection we have against any Nazi-type regime in this country. "

    Freedom of Speech, However, Doesn't mean freedom from consequences. So if you share your unpopular ideas in a public setting, The government can't arrest you, But the public can mock you or challenge your ideas in a variety of ways (read: social media). In addition, Don't be surprised if a private social media company (i. E. YouTube, Twitter, Etc. ) boot you off their platform if you share ideas THEY deem to be unpopular. They are not government agencies but private businesses so they can censor whatever they want. The downside to censorship is that once a line is drawn in the sand, The line becomes wider and wider as more users get offended by more ideas - ultimately, Censorship is self-defeating (but this is for another topic).

    What the public CAN'T do, Is assault you because they don't like your ideas. This means that the public cannot intimidate, Harass, Or threaten you for your ideas - this also goes for physical assault (which has become more tolerated by the left as a shameful form of "self-defense" from ideas with which they disagree).

    It's really not that complicated. Free speech rights still need constant, Vigilant protection.

  • No, It shouldn't

    This is a very important aspect of western society. The people NEED to be able to say and think whatever they want about not just the government but also everyday things. Just because whatever they say you may find offensive does not mean they don't have the right to say it. Freedom of thought is REQUIRED in a democracy.

  • Freedom of speech should be limited:. Children need limits and boundaries to be safe and secured.

    VIf a person has the freedom to go out, That doesn’t mean a person is out till midnight, If a person has the freedom to use gadgets that doesn’t mean the person will use gadgets all the day, If a person has the freedom to do shopping that doesn’t mean the person will start wasting money. That is why freedom should be limited. Yes, No good! Its common sense. "Shakespeare once said to trust only a few. This is because humans cannot be trusted to make good decisions with unlimited freedom. Freedom is a dangerous thing without limitations, Because people would not be given justice. "freedoms should only be taken from a man when his personal choices are at all.


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

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.