Should some regimes impose limits on freedom of speech

Asked by: MasturDbtor
  • Depends on the context

    This is quite difficult to answer because it really depends on the kind of limits you are talking about and whether these apply only to public demonstrations and preaching or whether it also applies to things such as the internet and private groups. Personally i believe that public demonstrations by organizations attacking minorities in order to incite violence against any peoples should be prohibited to stop social unrest, a good example of the sort of organizations i am referring to are ones such as the westboro baptist church and the English Defence League over here in the UK. However the right to freedom of speech should be upheld in other circumstances such as on the internet, private organizations and press.

  • Some places in the world are dealing with too many problems with extremists and intolerance, particularly countries where Islamic extremism is popular

    I'm not saying we should do this in the United States, because while there are some very hateful people in the United States they are a fringe and don't have much influence beyond keeping gay marriage from becoming legal. What I'm talking about are middle eastern countries where popular opinion is that they should oppress religions that are not islam, that gay people should be executed, and that women should not be allowed out into public without a male chaperone. This is frankly barbarism. These countries are NOT ready for free speech or even ready for democracy. When given a chance the people vote for people more extreme than the regimes they have in place. What these nations require is a dictatorship of more educated people to impose harsh penalties and mandatory reeducation against anyone expressing extremist views such as that only Islam should be legal, that gays should be persecuted, or that women shouldn't have equal rights. In fact even merely expressing that some religion should have special rights of any kind should be made illegal in this part of the world. This part of the world needs a dramatic effort against hateful, violent, extremist, and intolerant views.

    There should be a democracy part of the regime too but subordinated to the educated clique and the goal should be transition to full democracy once the public is sufficiently educated. The clique could limit who would get to run for office (no Islamic extremists, no homophobes, no sexists, no racists, and nobody with a history of these views) and veto anything that reflects extremist or hateful viewpoints.

    If necessary the Western World should pool together to impose these regimes on this part of the world and bring the middle east into the 21st century.

    This also applies to countries like Uganda and Nigeria which are virulently homophobia.

  • In my opinion

    Limits can not be imposed on freedom of speech because that would start a downward spiral of rights being infringed upon and taken away. Infringing upon freedom of speech would not keep people from thinking the way they are thinking. What needs to be addressed is the root of these extremist and dangerous opinions, not just a be seen and not heard approach. People are going to have these views whether they are allowed to speak of them or not. It will only infuriate people further and cause them to become more committed to their opinions that others view as extremist or harmful, and they may lash out in other ways. These issues NEED to be talked about in order for change to begin.

  • No, that does not help anybody.

    If you are a Muslim man, a Christian man, a Buddhist, etc, etc, it doesn't matter, you should still get the gift of tolerance. The reason we have uprisings and religious backlash is directly because of intolerance. When I hear people say "These countries are not ready for free speech" I shake my head.

    The reason people lash out is because they have been oppressed in the first place. To think that people think the solution is to suppress these people further just makes me sad. Even if it briefly helped, it would never last, as history has proven.

    Words like "Reeducation" stink of Totalitarianism, and history has proven time and time again that these attempts never work. Just look up a history of Iraq. We are in a huge, century-spanning lineup of countries poking around Iraq. The solution is not that easy, and actually... Perhaps there is no solution.

  • Freedom of Speech

    Freedom of Speech is a freedom I am not willing to give up. Think about it ! Which idiot in Washington would make that decision for us? What words would be outlawed Gay, God incompetent Government, if I wantedbto be sensored I would live in China or some other Country where they would run over me with a tank when i wanted to assemble or express myself. I Want the right to Speak Freely!!!

  • The whole Point of Freedom of Speech is to say unpopular things

    Based on the photo, my assumption the discussion is on unpopular political and or scientific views and not the "fire in a movie theater" scenario, which leads to a direct injury of an individual.

    There is literally no point to freedom of speech if its limited to things that are popular, passable within the group that control the language/sensitivity of the country, or only for those who have been "properly educated"

    Freedom of speech was set up to speak ones mind without fear of political reprisal. It was meant to be a clash of ideas, in which the long term would yield to the superior idea.

    Putting barriers up to protect our sensitive natures or for some imaginary right to not be offended would make us prone to bypass inconvenient truths or discussions entirely should they ever come up. There is no logical line which differentiates which of the "unpopular" topics are acceptable and what isn't, which makes judgement entirely arbitrary and subject to mob rule

    Proponents of such restrictions directly parallel the issue the Catholic church had in the past. While in modern times, I think Wiccan theology is bunk I believe in the heliocentric model to be true. The idea that sensitive authority figures could have drawn the gray line between these two without debating/discussing the issue is ludicrous.

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