To what extent should individuals rights to freedom of speech be limited?
Posted on January 27th, 2010 by admin
How should the government limit or not limit freedom of speech and why???
It depends on how you define the freedom of speech. Most define it as speech between the people and the government. Rather than thinking of putting limits on the freedom of speech, you should think of what is not protected by the freedom of speech. Some examples are threatening to harm or kill someone, ordering others to harm someone or damage property, shouting obscenities, slanderous speech etc.
January 27th, 2010 at 3:16 pm
A very tough question. One of the toughest.
References :
January 27th, 2010 at 4:01 pm
The standard limit is if the speech may invoke harm to society in general that has no substantial merit, it will not fall under First Amendment protection. For instance, shouting ‘fire’ maliciously in a crowded movie theater is damaging with no redeemable qualities, whereas hate speech, though possibly damaging and inciting, does actually express an opinion of values, etc. Basically, freedom of speech should only be limited to exclude slander, libel, threats, and other such purposeless (from a societal viewpoint) expressions.
References :
January 27th, 2010 at 4:32 pm
It depends on how you define the freedom of speech. Most define it as speech between the people and the government. Rather than thinking of putting limits on the freedom of speech, you should think of what is not protected by the freedom of speech. Some examples are threatening to harm or kill someone, ordering others to harm someone or damage property, shouting obscenities, slanderous speech etc.
References :
January 27th, 2010 at 4:49 pm
It should be pain-full if it’s not correct…
References :
January 27th, 2010 at 5:27 pm
The government may limit the freedom of speech as to protect the public when necessary.
For example, you can’t falsely yell "Fire!!!" in a crowded room, when there really is no fire… or "Bomb!" in an airport when there is no legitimate bomb threat.
It is also illegal to threaten people with physical violence – this is actually assault if the other person reasonably believes he is in danger.
Additionally there are rules against defamation, which is publicly stating false facts about a person or entity as so to attack their character and cause harm to their reputation. For example, you couldn’t publish something about how some credit company screwed you out of $40,000 when they really didn’t…. or falsely report something to the police.
There are more technical ones… but those are the main. Hope that helps
References :
PARALEGAL
January 27th, 2010 at 5:44 pm
freedom of speech is guaranteed to all citizens of this country by the 1st amendment of the constitution. the neo-cons that have hijacked this countries government shouldn’t have anything to say about it under any circumstances.the reason for this is because this is supposed to be the land of the "FREE" and without the freedom of speech then many concerns of a large portion of the population would go unheard…now take a look around.
References :
http://www.infowars.com
January 27th, 2010 at 5:54 pm
they should not be stop, when a goverment is angry,will be sued!
References :