Do you think freedom of speech/expression should have more limits?
Posted on January 27th, 2010 by admin
I love America and I wish to serve it when I am older. But don’t you think that America should limit some of it’s freedoms? Like for instance freedom of speech/expression. Because of it, we have KKK members sending bad messages to people saying that one race is inferior or should be treated badly. I do value freedom but there should be some limits on certain freedoms, don’t you think?
No I do not agree. The only way to retain your freedom to say what you want is to protect the rights of those whose speech makes your blood boil. The proper response to offensive speech is not to suppress it but to speak out about it. More speech, not less, is the answer.
January 27th, 2010 at 3:09 pm
No I do not agree. The only way to retain your freedom to say what you want is to protect the rights of those whose speech makes your blood boil. The proper response to offensive speech is not to suppress it but to speak out about it. More speech, not less, is the answer.
References :
January 27th, 2010 at 3:51 pm
no
References :
January 27th, 2010 at 4:31 pm
no there is already a move to limit expression and i don’t like it . freedom of expression is the basis of democracy.
References :
January 27th, 2010 at 5:01 pm
Well, I do agree, in a way, but I think there should actually be less limits in America personally.
References :
myself
January 27th, 2010 at 5:12 pm
So curbing their freedom of speech will change their minds, right? Look, we have a law that helps us identify idiots, it lets them show themselves off! You don’t think that’s just a little useful?
Threats are not considered protected speech by the way. If someone is threatened by someone else (and it’s deemed a credible threat by a judge) that person has the right to get a "no contact" or "restraining" order that would make further contact with the protected party a violation of a court order, for which the offender can be put in jail. Freedom of speech has been determined also to be limited by time, place and manner; you shouldn’t expect to be able to interrupt the P.O.T.U.S. by screaming in the middle of his speech, you will be removed/detained but probably not charged with any crime (unless you make a threat, then expect to at least go through some difficulty.) Also, obscenity laws mean that an elementary school teacher could be sanctioned for using the "f" word in front of his students, for instance. There are always times when situations force the application of the rules to get a second look, and that is probably a good thing. It means we can handle what gets thrown at us.
Then there are always people who go against the dominant paradigm, say in academia or science, who can be demonized. Like Galileo or DaVinci. Remember Larry Summers, president of Harvard, who posed a question about why there are fewer women involved in science than men? Just a question, and the p.c. police were all over him and forced him to resign, as though his question were invalid. In academia we shouldn’t have sacred cows if we are truly interested in finding answers to tough questions.
Lastly, who would decide what is offensive? This is the toughest question of all to answer, and in Canada, for instance, they have decided that white people cannot say anything remotely critical of several "protected" groups. Doesn’t this assume that these groups are inferior, and that whites are superior, that they could do so much damage with their words? Even worse is the prospect that a ruling political party could silence its opposition by claiming that they use "hate speech". This crushes dialogue and is anything but progress.
I like our system. If you can prove that someone has done you harm by intentionally lying about you (slander, libel) then they can be forced to pay you monetary damages. If they threaten you, they can be told to back off and sanctioned with jail time.
And don’t be afraid of the KKK. Free speech gave them enough rope with which to hang themselves, that and their idiotic and violent tactics have backfired on them. They are overblown as a bogeyman and any politician allied with the Klan doesn’t have a snowball’s chance in hell of being elected.
References :