Freedom Ride

Go to saudi arabia or syria and try to have freedom of religion or freedom of speech. Theyll put you to death faster than you can say "infidel"!

That is why so many of their citizens, muslims, flee those regimes. Although Syria is a secular society. Don’t you ever hear echoes of those theocracies when you listen to crazy christian fundamentalists trying to force their religion on the state?

In what instances has the right to freedom of speech led to positive occurrences such as rights for minorities, new laws to help others, etc?
Some examples of what I’m interested in receiving as answers include Martin Luther King and the Homestead Strike (Which led to laws supporting workers treatment)

During World War I, several cases challenged Selective Service and Espionage laws. The 1919 decisions in Schenck v. U.S. and Abrams v. U.S. established the Clear and Present Danger Test:

The Clear and Present Danger test – The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a crowded theatre. It does not protect a man from uttering words that have the effect of force. The question in every case is whether the words in such circumstances are such as to create a clear and present danger that will bring about evils the government has a right to prevent. The First Amendment exists to protect the public good as well as individual expression.

In the 1920s, two cases, Gitlow v. New York (1925) and Whitney v. California (1927) established an even more conservative test – the Bad Tendency Test:

The Bad Tendency test – The freedom of speech does not protect disturbances to the public peace, attempts to subvert the government, inciting crime, or corruption of morals. The danger is none the less real and substantial because the effect of a given utterance cannot be seen. Just as with the offense of conspiracy, or other preparatory steps, the government need not wait until the spark has kindled the flame. It can act toward any threat to public order, even those that do so only remotely.

The right to freedom of speech is recognized as a human right under Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and recognized in international human rights law in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). The ICCPR recognizes the right to freedom of speech as "the right to hold opinions without interference. Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression." Furthermore freedom of speech is recognized in European, inter-American and African regional human rights law.

The notion of freedom of expression is intimately linked to political debate and the concept of democracy.

Surely we want the right of the press to inform us of torture at Guantanamo and Abu Gharaib. We want to have that right? Do you agree?
X-Rouge – I am an old spirit and have seen many regenerations/incarnations. But I do not recall having met you before. You seem like a new spirit. As you move on, let me pass on some advice to you: Ignorance and Fear, are the two pillars of bigotry, that are powerful allies. Each supports the other. It worries me that ignorance seems to be on the increase as people are persuaded by “true believers” of every kind to value belief over thought.

I’ll use the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms as an example to support my viewpoints. Under this charter, "freedom of expression" is listed as a "fundamental freedom", under section 2. Freedom of expression has been described as being "difficult to imagine a guaranteed right more important to a democratic society". The reason for this is because in a democratic society, the way a government is structured depends on the expressions and speech of the people. As long as your freedom of expression doesn’t violate someone else’s right to security and safety of person in terms of violence, you are allowed to express yourself.

This however, doesn’t mean that the media is free to inform the public of everything it wants to. Like the case with Wikileaks, for example. The website along with its leaked documents, allowed the media to really be able to talk about what has really been going on behind closed doors of the US government. The media is censored, of course, because as the citizens of a democracy, we somehow don’t get the privilege of outlining what we want to hear on the news. (Torture at Guantanamo Bay is something that many people have known about already, keep in mind. I was brought to the case by Omar Khadr).

The question is, do most people really WANT to hear about everything that has been going on? Personally I would sleep better if I had not known about what prisoners are subject to in some prisons. I would sleep better if I had not known about the excursions of Canadian soldiers in afghanistan, and I would sleep better if many of the news I currently know about I remained ignorant to. However, I don’t get to decide that. The reason for this is because again, this freedom of speech has not violently harmed me in any way, therefore I have to allow myself to have an ear open to what the media is reporting, even if it is being censored by the government. Without freedom of speech, our society would resemble more of a totalitarian regime, where I would not be allowed to voice my opinions on current situations. Nothing could be worse than not having a say. It is because of out democratic principles that have been drilled into me from birth that my worldview is such. However I do not deny that in my opinion, the need for freedom of expression and speech is of the utmost importance. Without everyone having expression, every citizen would be the same and the concept of "individual" is lessened significantly.

There are many politicians in India, who are the so called "Saviours", who speak very abruptly.

Few of them speak in public meet to gain populance.

For the sake of innocent people (of same lanuage) aborad in another country, they abuse Indian integrity. They even warn India against its sovereignty and integrity.

Indians have freedom of speech but, it should not be used in abuse of nation.

What should be done to shed these thorns who misuse the freedom of speech?

You can not stop them. Actually they are marketing themself. You can ask the most exp.mkting person you know that whether mkting is done on truth?
Ya you can decrease the effect of it if media supports us by not covering their speech

In the USA there is freedom of press and freedom of speech. Although I noticed many things between people with opposing views tell each other to "shut up" or media censors. There are some stories when a person says something fake like "there’s a bomb" as a joke but can get arrested for it.

It seems freedom of speech has limits. Does freedom of speech have limits or can one not be allowed to disagree without being censored or arrested?

Provide your insight to this issue. Thank you

True freedom of speech doesn’t exist in America. They tell you, "You can say whatever you want!…except you can’t say this and that". The examples you gave are right and good examples of lack of true freedom of speech. Of course, these limitations are supposedly put in place to protect everyone else and their rights, which I think, to an extent, is acceptable. (Like the bomb example). But as for cuss words and media censors, I think, should not exist.

Will we ever live in an America with complete, freedom of speech? I don’t believe so, and to be honest, I think the limitations will get more extreme from here. This is only the beginning.

If you say something sexually bad to someone, and it is marked as sexual harassment, I believe it is injustice. We have the freedom of speech.

Please tell my why it would be sexual harassment even though we have freedom of speech.
What if it isn’t threatening? What if someone says to an opposite gender person that they have hairy private parts. Would that still be considered threatening?

The right to free speech is not guaranteeing anyone in the United States that they can say whatever the hell they want to someone and it’s okay. It’s more to do with the government, and how citizens are allowed to protest and say what they wish about the US without it being against the law. Sexual harassment is not included in this amendment.

I’m doing a project for my civics class and I have explain the benefits of freedom of expression. My topic is on gay marriage and right so I created a sign saying "Albus Dumbledore supports gay marriage." Would this be freedom of speech or freedom of assembly? In my picture, there aren’t any other people holding signs so what would it be?

Freedom of speech

Like if you know someone who committed a crime years ago, (like say a $10,000 robbery) but that person never got caught, can you talk about it (even though you were not involved in any way, shape or form, the person just told you about it since he’s your friend for many years). Can you talk about it without being harassed by Police? If not, why not? Isn’t freedom of speech suppose to protect the individual? What extremities does freedom of speech protect you from?

As the other responses indicated, this really isn’t a free speech issue at all. You seem to think that you have the right to speak to others about a crime without police officers seeking information about it. The First Amendment only prohibits the (federal) government from abridging your right to free speech by punishing or prohibiting certain speech. You don’t seem concerned with punishment on account of your proposed speech, except in the form of police "harassment," which doesn’t seem to be more than the ordinary investigation of what you acknowledge is a crime.

It’s certainly possible for police to take actions in response to your speech that would be a constitutional violation, but that probably would be an extreme case and doesn’t seem to be what you’re concerned about.

I believe every one is entitled to their opinion so if religious people say homosexuality is wrong it is their right to freedom of speech and thought and they end up being called homophobs.They are not so so scared of homosexuals they just oppose them and phobia is a fear especially unreasonable fear.

my thoughts exactly, the whole concept of freedom of speech only exists to favour certain people…anyone who doesnt agree with homos, religions and other things have a right to say it.

It’s honestly a disgrace, forget freedom of speech, this is ridiculous, these bunch of animals should be shot. It’s soldiers like those that ensured that we have such freedoms. As they are going against these; their freedom should be stripped and whatever punishment the public see fit should be enforced. Hopefully death.

The soldiers should be allowed to break ranks and set about these scum,And the police should walk away.