• Yes, And the following should be the restrictions:

    No libel, Slander, Defamation, Speech that incites violence, Yelling "bomb", "fire", Or any word that causes panic when there is no actual threat present, Perjury, Fraud. (There might be more, But here's a list to start).

    Also, That freedom of speech only applies to public property and property that you own yourself. This is a restriction as well. I like how many ppl on the "no" side mention how it cannot be restricted, Yet they drop in their own restriction that it can only be exercised on public property.

    True freedom of speech with no restrictions implies that u can exercise you are rights anywhere, Including if u were on someone else's property. So therefore, That's another restriction that's reasonable.

  • Nazis can piss off.

    I'm sick to death of extremist ideals. Nazis were beaten in WW2 but in USA the 1st Amendment sees people waving the flag. In Germany you can't even seen Nazi stuff in video games about WW2.

    People have this idea that absolute everything is free speech or it's a dictatorship and evil. I disagree. I think you can have rules and regulations without still having freedom. Case and point, We say "you can drive at 110km/hr". We don't complain that country is suddenly a dictatorship because it has a traffic lights.

    So I think groups that aware of known illegal; Nazis, Jihad, UPF Australia, And so on. Basically terrorist groups. They should be shot on sight, Not to hang around next door saying "Kill All Blacks".

  • No restrictions implies removing laws on criminal-associated speech.

    If there are no restrictions on speech, Then ppl can commit libel, Slander, Defamation freely with no consequence, And it would prevent the enforcement of these laws because these laws would violate the freedom of speech notion. Ppl could also start making threats, Yelling "bomb" in public, And commit other forms of speech that are unacceptable.

    Another reason restrictions should be enforced is the fact that the Constitution innately has restrictions on the 1st amendment already. By definition, Libel is technically speech and should be protected under freedom of speech. But does our society think that's acceptable? Absolutely not, And thus libel laws restrict that form of speech. The fact that the Constitution wants to restrict freedom of speech should provide enough support for the claim that restrictions should be placed. Because arguing on the "no" side would imply lifting these restrictions.

    Next I want to refute certain counterclaims:
    1. Subjectivity in Hate Speech

    While this tends to be a good argument, I don't usually argue on this topic, As I look more towards libel, Slander, Threats, And provocative speech and whether those should be restricted. If AT LEAST ONE speech needs to be restricted, Then that automatically means you should be on the "yes" side. To say "no" means absolutely no speech can be restricted, Which means no "buts".

    2. Libel, Slander, Threats are not freedom of speech.

    Yes. They CURRENTLY aren't, And you know why? Because we ADDED RESTRICTIONS to the 1st amendment. So you can't use the fact that the 1st amendment innately doesn't encompass libel to say that "freedom of speech is good". No, When we talk about no restrictions on freedom of speech, It's imagining the hypothetical scenario where even libel is allowed.

    3. People deserve to have opinion.

    This one, I'm not going to refute because it's true. But just remember that speech is not simply about stating opinions. Remember libel, Slander, Defamation, And other forms of unacceptable speech. Don't simply focus on the milder, Less law-violating forms of speech.

  • No, Many disasters have occurred just because of this.

    When a person has the rights of freedom of speech, Then that person can express any opinion without being cautious. People can spread false information, Which can cause terrible results, Like captivity and violence also even deaths. A person can hurt someone by mocking them. With freedom of speech, Society will eventually break apart. This is because people will horribly attack each other on religion, Culture, Etc. That is all I have to say on freedom of speech to be restricted.

  • Burger King foot LETTUCE

    The last thing you'd want in your Burger King burger is someone's foot fungus. But as it turns out, That might be what you get. A 4channer uploaded a photo anonymously to the site showcasing his feet in a plastic bin of lettuce. With the statement: "This is the lettuce you eat at Burger King. " Admittedly, He had shoes on.

    But that's even worse.

    The post went live at 11:38 PM on July 16, And a mere 20 minutes later, The Burger King in question was alerted to the rogue employee. At least, I hope he's rogue. How did it happen? Well, The BK employee hadn't removed the Exif data from the uploaded photo, Which suggested the culprit was somewhere in Mayfield Heights, Ohio. This was at 11:47. Three minutes later at 11:50, The Burger King branch address was posted with wishes of happy unemployment. 5 minutes later, The news station was contacted by another 4channer. And three minutes later, At 11:58, A link was posted: BK's "Tell us about us" online forum. The foot photo, Otherwise known as exhibit A, Was attached. Cleveland Scene Magazine contacted the BK in question the next day. When questioned, The breakfast shift manager said "Oh, I know who that is. He's getting fired. " Mystery solved, By 4chan. Now we can all go back to eating our fast food in peace.

  • YES, To a Certain Extent, Some Examples

    Now, Let me say, Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Expression & the
    1st Amendment is Important, However we need to think about the Rights of others as well, For Example in America & Many Other Nations, College & University Campuses have become living Nightmares for many Jewish, Christian & other students who Support the State of Israel, Pro-Terrorist Hate Groups such as
    "Students for Justice in Palestine" SJP & the BDS movement are Examples of this Sick Evil Hate against Israel, America's most loyal ally & friend in the Mideast, The only Democracy in the Mideast,
    Jewish students Must have a Right to a Safe & Harassment Free Environment on College & University Campuses, Free from Hatred, Violence & Intimidation, The weasels & cowards who hide behind "Free Speech" to spew hatred towards Israel & Jews should be Forced to hold their hate rallies in Separate areas of the College/University Campuses where Jewish Students & Other Pro-Israel students won't have to endure violence, Harassment & abuse, The evil hatred against Jews & Israel that is Promoted on College & University Campuses across America, This Hatred would NEVER be tolerated against any other nation or Ethnic Group, Yet why is it falsely called "Free Speech" to abuse Jews & Israel, When such hate would Never be tolerated against other groups,
    Let us clarity again, There is No "Palestine"
    There Never was a Nation called "Palestine" and there is No Such Thing as a "Palestinian People" the so-called "Palestinians" are a Fake Invented People, A Fake Invented People that are no different from other Arabs, There are No "Palestinians" There is No Palestinian Language, Ethnicity, Or culture,
    People who support "Palestinians" over Israel, They don't truly care about the so-called "Palestinians" they just use the "Palestinians" as Pawns to Attack Israel & Jews, The fact is, They couldn't care less about the so-called "Palestinians" We need to also realize that
    People who are Anti-Israel and Support the Fake Invented known as "Palestinians" those Anti-Israel & Pro-Palestinian Pro-Terrorist people are Completely Satanic & Demonic, Diabolical Devils, With not the slightest shred of humanity or decency within them, You cannot reason with them, Because they are basically possessed by the Devil, They are tools of Satan the Devil, God Loves Israel, While Satan hates Israel and the Jews

  • Very Important need

    This is a very needed rule in our country. Everyone keeps saying whatever they want thinking its a free country and hurting others feelings. It is mostly needed in schools where everyone is beimg teased with their family name. It is very good to have the freedom of speech but one must deserve it. I would say that freedom of speech should be limited to certain amounts, Not completely.

  • Yes, There should be restrictions on speech.

    Say someone walks into an airport or school and yells "Bomb! ", The right should be restricted. If the speech is done in intent of hurting those around them, That is when it should be restricted. I'm not denying the fact that people do not have right and freedom of speech, There are just certain circumstances in which people should remain silent.

  • On Both Sides

    I think it is important that we live in a free country that can enable us to voice opinions, But at the same time, A country or place without rules and restrictions is one that can mean trouble. If people are investing time doing things like murdering someone, Then they could possible say that there is nothing within the law that says you couldn't just kill someone. In this case, As well as many more, It is crucial that there are limitations to what we can do and cannot. It will allow us to live lives, Better occupied with love and overall meaning.

  • T h i s i s w hy

    M y m i c n u g e t i t s a r e u m e m y l i f e m c x w oo p f a c e c h i c e n nug i t i t s suck the big chode ;ol :)

  • 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.