Amazon.com Widgets
  • Freedom Of Speech Is Dangerous!

    We could have people spouting homophobic, racist, nationalist and downright offensive views, their defense is usually "Free Speech". Without total freedom of speech, the KKK would not be able to legally exist, Neo-Nazis would be stopped, and racist abuse would be disallowed. The freedom of speech that was originally proposed died with the American dream.

  • Where one freedom begins is where the other ends.

    We have our 1st Amendment rights given to us by the US Constitution. One of these is the freedom of speech. But sometimes there has to be restrictions on speaking, for instance swearing in public. Swearing in public is bad and is a public nuisance. It also hurts other people's feelings and embarrasses them. This form of freedom of speech should be restricted in public.
    Sundial

  • There already are

    True freedom would mean we can say whatever we want, whenever we want, wherever we want w/o getting into legal trouble. With defamation laws and the laws behind verbal threats we cannot do that. I cannot tell the president i plan on murdering him w/o getting into legal trouble. I cannot run into a movie theatre and yell fire w/o getting into legal trouble. I cannot say John raped and killed Bridgette (knowing it wasn't true) and avoid legal trouble or lawsuits. These kind of restrictions are good. Just as long as they stick to these.

  • 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.

  • Freedom has limits.

    Our freedom ends where the other's starts, one must be free to give its opinions, with coherence and respect, but must be consequent with the sensitivity of people. Americans wouldn't tolerate someone talking positively about 9\11 the same way Germans for example do not tolerate nazi manifestations.
    To use our freedom we must respect the other's freedom aswell.

  • Having the right to free speech isn't the right to be irresponsible.

    I'm not against having people screeching at the top of their lungs like petulant children over non-issues. After all, having such obnoxious people is just something we need to accept in having the right to say whatever we want in return. With that said though, I do believe we need to hold people credible for whenever they spread misinformation. Lies and dishonesty is something we simply shouldn't ever tolerate, even under free speech. People should always be held accountable for what they say.

    Someone doesn't like gay people? Okay, fine. No problem. The person who hates gay people constantly curses, screams, and cries on how horrible and immoral gay people are? Okay, fine. No problem. The person who hates gay people constantly curses, screams, and cries on how horrible and immoral gay people are while also spreading factual misinformation on them? Well, to be honest, I think a line needs to be drawn around this point. Some people will say and do anything to have people agree with them on an issue, and we simply shouldn't give these dishonest people ammunition by allowing them to lie and distort facts.



    Misinformation is one of the worst crimes

  • Speech is an act and acts which cause unnecessary and substantial harm should be illegal.

    I am not talking about causing offense or promoting an unpopular and even morally corrupt point of view. But it is not legal to incite riots or to verbally harass ( in the legal sense) and nor should it be. Freedom of speech exists to promote the liberty of individuals, not to allow us to cause harm to one another.

  • Why are you here for debate if it should be restricted?

    Oration helps in expression. It raises voice may be for good things or bad decided by the society.
    Its finally on the people whether to nurture it or throw it away. It may not be correct for the majority to quote reasons as the speech as it is they who have finally accepted it and followed it. Speech has nothing right or wrong, it all depends on what you feel and what we don,t. Like we all are doing right here. Putting restriction on the speech doesn't guarantee anything unless the opposite party acts accordingly.

  • I don't think it's right

    Kids can commit suicide because kid think it's a free country and they can say what they want well their wrong .It is a free country but u don't know how much it would hurt someone and this all leads to bullies. Bullies think they can say what they want but they never know how much their hurting someone. People getting hurt can lead to suicide I don't agree with with freedom of speech

  • Freedom is a relative conception

    A: Entire freedom may divulge some secret relating to the security of people or society.
    B:Someone's expression may influence others’ value or psyche especially for children, which means some extreme view of an incident such as a war or a scandal in political circle may give people a bad mood or awareness.

  • People have rights

    People have a right to say what ever they want to say. No one has the right to stop them. You may not like some of the opinions people voice, or the words that they use, but this is absolutely no reason to have the government trample people's natural rights.

  • No but that doesn't mean free speech can be used as an excuse to validate other behavior.

    Arresting those protesting on private "no trespassing" property is not a denial of free speech. I really get irked about that kind of misrepresentation and people crying over first amendment rights. Death threats are not a form of free speech. They are a threat. Calling a soldier that has never done anything but served his country in good faith a "baby killer" is defamation of character. You say that to someone that is being tried or investigated, that is a gray area. You say that to someone that has been convicted it is free speech. Protest that the government should give amnesty to illegals? It's an opinion, and free speech as long as you don't do it on my private property.

    It's when freedom of speech isn't freedom of speech that the problem arises. "Hate Speech" is freedom of speech to the extent that the language used does not incite or encourage violence or violation of the law. There is a huge difference in toting a sign that says "No more (fill in the blank) and "Yes, send us more dead (fill in the blank)". One shows your lack of tolerance and opinion that there should be no more whatever. The second shows distinct encouragement for the acceptance of violence against the group being protested.

    Freedom of speech is NOT the ability to say whatever you feel like when you feel like it where you feel like it. Yelling BOMB in a theater is not freedom of speech. Advertising or protesting you wish someone dead or are looking forward to seeing a group of people dead is not freedom of speech. Reporting that gets people killed is not freedom of speech. Profanity & Sexual suggestions are not free speech.

  • The world changes

    Freedom of speech helps the world to change. Without this kind of expression, the world wouldn't be aware of all the problems we have, and wouldn't help to change them. For example, with the Charlie Hebdo problem going around, the world and France got aware of the problem of religion, as well as malala or nelson mandela.
    Those kind of person broke the limit of speech and it helped to change life positively.

  • You can't pick and choose what is free and what isn't.

    When the government censors certain "unallowable" opnions, and at the same times pretends to protect "freedom of speech", it is essentially saying "you are free to say whatever you want, as long as you don't say this." This is the same principle that exists in even the most totalitarian societies; saying that that society has "free speech" becomes meaningless.

  • Freedom of speech does not encourage violence

    Freedom of speech is not the same as promoting violence. Freedom of speech is not violating the law, promoting violence or 'waiting (fill in blank) dead'. Everyone has a right to voice their opinions and believes. If the government takes away that right, then that is the starting point for being able to neglect other human rights.

  • Our current restrictions are sufficient.

    In the United States, where I live, we allow citizens to be free from government interference for speaking. This is one of our cherished rights, so much so that it's the very first amendment to our Constitution. However, this right does not extend to private businesses or individuals, who are free to penalize you all they want for saying stupid, damaging, or inflammatory things. This is a public-private balance that is appropriate, and additional restrictions are not required.

  • We deserve to have freedom of speech, but...

    People have lost the true meaning of what it really means. In other words, the public should not be taking for granted this freedom we have. People are protesting, which is increasing crime and violence. They are rioting and Luding which doesn't help anything it only makes matters worse. Please don't use freedom of speech as just an excuse to be an oblivious idiot in public and to physically hurt authority and citizens.

  • No. Why? Who has the absolute authority to draw the arbitrary line?

    Based on the simple fact that each individual carries different views on a diverse amount of ideas and concepts, speech is just the same. To draw the line of what is considered appropriate or permissible speech, as opposed to speech that many be considered not allowable for a number of arbitrary reasons. Who says? And, what makes them the cultural authority on such vocal grounds?

  • Speech is knowledge

    Speech is a word which carries emotions, anger ,happiness, joy and so on.In one's speech he is expressing his idea on a certain topic may be he is opposing some one . He is trying to bring that topic in front of people. So i strongly assert that there should not be a restrictions on freedom of speech

  • No, there shouldn't

    The basis of a democracy is free speech; if you can't say whatever you want, you can't vote for whoever you want, therefore it is not a democracy. As much as I despise racists, homophobes and anyone on the right side of the spectrum, they have every right to believe what they want and express themselves, too. It's our job to debate and help them change their mind where possible.


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

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