Opinion Question
Argument
Posted by:

Some restrictions are absolutely necessary.

  Hate speech, lies, and slander are not protected by the 1st Amendment of the US Constitution, as determined by SCOTUS. I feel, if I decided to threaten my opponent with death, I ought to be removed from this website. In worst cases, I might even face incarceration for severe hate speech and slander. Some regulation is absolutely necessary. Any Constitutional right can be limited; it's the degree that matters most.
ABeard says2016-07-01T03:40:19.050
If your right can be limited then how is that a right? A right is something everyone owns therefore no one can restrict or limit this right but yourself. If it can be a limited it's then a privilege.
karlossus says2017-10-24T08:51:05.960
Dagwood525, you misunderstand freedom of speech. It is not a license for threats and violent intent, those things should be and are restricted. Freedom of speech means you can openly have an opinion and criticise other opinions, even if they are biased, bigoted or racist. Germans can still discuss Nazis, their views and the terrible things they did. They cannot legally do Nazi things like paint a swastika on a Jewish home because that carries specific malicious intent. There will always be grey areas, but that's what the courts are for.
DBThenerd1987 says2018-04-12T14:50:18.070
I find it funny that people calling for free speech (Not saying you specifically) often say how it can hurt people, but often defend false rape accusers, which the accused often loses his job or his tuition when the accuser has nothing bad happen to them besides maybe a 500 fine.
brolum says2021-05-30T01:35:34.350
@karlossus

Ofc everyone understands what freedom of speech INTENDS to be. But simply because it INTENDS to mean well doesn't mean there won't be UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES, Such as protecting criminal associated speech like threats and libel.

For example, A commonly debated question is whether to allow teachers to have guns. By your logic, You can argue that you should because the meaning of letting teachers possess guns is to protect students. But what's an unintended consequence? That teachers could potentially harm the students instead of protecting them. But by your logic "you misunderstand letting teachers possess guns. It is not a license to let teachers harm students". This argument does not justify or back up the reasoning behind implementing this policy. Yea, Sure we misunderstand the intent, But there's still the unintended consequences in existence. You cannot let the intentions of something define it's effects.

You yourself stated there should be restrictions, Thus I'm questioning which side you are arguing. Your rebuttal was just weakened by you affirming that there should be some aspects of speech restricted.
brolum says2021-06-01T00:18:30.707
@ABeard

Good question. You should ask that for the 1st amendment then.

"If your right can be limited then how is that a right? A right is something everyone owns therefore no one can restrict or limit this right but yourself. If it can be a limited it's then a privilege. "

U do realize the 1st amendment rights have limits? For example, Libel, A form of speech, Is not allowed.
Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)

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