 
|
skunk masta
 |
NO, its one of the few things we have left. |
|
t3h1
 |
cant control peoples mouths.
you can put laws in place to try and silence people but they will always find a voice |
|
Joe C
 |
You don't have to have limits, as long as you have accountability for what you say.
For example...
There are no ushers in movie theaters passing out contraptions that will prevent you from yelling fire in a theater. That would be a limit, as you've mentioned.
However, you could become arrested for yelling fire in a theater, which is the accountability that I've mentioned.
By the same token, you can face accountability charges under laws of slander, character defamaition or sedtion, all while exercising your right to freedom of speech.
Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from liability or accountability. |
|
Dibski
|
No everyone should have the right to speek there own mind. |
|
mike w
 |
I think that there should only be limits that cover incitement and defamation/libel. Apart from that you should legally be able to say anything about anyone or anything. |
|
beardog4314
|
Well, people should shut up on their own every once in a while. But no, the government should never be allowed to impose limits on free speech. After so much blood has been poured into protecting that, how can anybody justify giving up any of our freedoms for any reason? I'd rather be insecure and free. But then, I've always bought into that "home of the Brave" thing, and evidently I'm not in the majority on that. |
|
duck_fook2000
|
Simple answer is no. Unless it places peoples healt at risk, such as yelling "fire" in a public place. Other than that, words can't hurt you as far as I know. If you don't agree, don't read. |
|
DickyNowItAll
|
What's the point of having freedom of speech if theres limits ? |
|
Mark A
|
Not in my opinion |
|
Leeeeeham
 |
nope |
|
Perdendosi
|
Your question is too broad.
Of course the speech right is not unlimited-- if that were true, it would be "free speech" to lie under oath at a trial, to start a riot by falsely shouting fire in a theater, to tell lies about other people hurting their reputation, to scream obscenities in the middle of a children's park, or I could start a demonstration right down the middle of the busiest street in every major city, distrupting traffic every day.
The Courts have created huge doctrines related to the "limits" on speech -- sometimes they just simply call an activity not "speech" protectable under the constitution (for example, libel, "fighting words," encitement). Sometimes they have balancing tests to determine whether there's a serious infringement of the speech right and whether the regulation is content-neutral and reasonable (like a "time, place, or manner" restriction requiring people to get permits and pay for police protection to march in a parade). Sometimes, there can be medium-based restrictions, for example to protect children (FCC's decency regulations, for example).
So your question should be more focused. Do you mean regulation on "CORE" speech (like political speech)? On private newspapers? Should the freedom be extended as against quasi-public spaces (like shopping malls)? Lots of sub-questions there. |
|
halsca
 |
There are limits already in place. Both criminal and civil. You can freely voice opinions as long as they're truthful or don't end up causing someone financial or physical injury. |
|
cadsaz
 |
This is an area of law I’m particularly interested in so here my spin on it.
In this country up until the European Convention of Human Rights 1950, people in the United Kingdom did not have a freedom of expression, we were only granted residual powers; we could say anything we wanted as long as it was not illegal. So when the ECHR was introduced everyone assumed that a new right had been created in the shape of Article 10 - Freedom of Expression. Then the UK incorporated this piece of law into our law in 1998, which came into force 2nd October 2000 (before that it wasn’t strictly law due to the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty). The government were so clever as to create a piece of legislation with so many holes in it it resembled a piece of macaroni cheese. There are no useful powers the courts can use against the government when they create laws incompatible with the Human Rights Act. They can make a declaration of incompatibility but this means nothing due to the doctrine of parliamentary supremacy.
That is why for my dissertation I plan to look at whether this piece of 'law' has in any way swayed the government to restrain itself from impeding people’s right to express themselves.
However it is of my opinion that as the west continues to oppose radical Islamic terrorists that our freedoms are going to have to suffer. In order for our safety our freedoms are going to have to be sacrificed in order to control what is said/preached by those who threaten democracy, but in the end is it worth it? |
|
Flit
|
There are limits dictated by law. As long as you do not break the CURRENT law, I believe people can say what they like. Anyone who thinks otherwise must have a very closed mind or very little opinion to share. |
|
Mantacore
|
There are limits, you cannot infringe on some one Else's rights. verbally or physically. |
|
munchkins revenge <3
 |
One of the first advocates of free speech his name was JS Mill actually said that when free speech was an incitement to hatred or violence then it did not serve the purposes of democracy and thus should not be allowed. PPl seem to use free speech as an excuse for any old claptrap nowadays they have no idea that it is only allowed in order to allow freedom of thought and exposure to other pts of view and thus to enable democracy to function properly by stopping the gvmt from controlling what we are exposed to and thus controlling our thoughts in favour of them and their policies
Shouting "fire" in a cinema is not freedom and speech that would have been allowed by its original advocates, it was purely for political purposes to stop excessive political control |
|
Big Dave
|
The only limitation I have in regards to freedom of speech refer to the case of Brandenburg v. Ohio, which disputed the Schenck v. United States (fire in a crowded theater) ruling. Unless the speech or action would be directly responsible for injury or death, there should not be a limit. The question is, what constitutes an injury? I encourage all to follow the links below and come up with there own conclusion. |
|
SAOIRSE
|
There should never be restrictions on freedom of speech god do we want another zimbabwe, china, north korea, NO |
|
:) (:
|
no! apart from no racist comments...
and we shud b able to speak our minds to adults (like teachers)!! we are all equal |
|
bmattj121
|
There are limits to free speech: you can't yell fire in a crowded theatre if there isn't a fire. |
|
☆BTriX☆
|
There are limits to free speech - as in you can't incite a riot...etc. |
|
jackie m
|
there is limits - a new rule that came out few years ago doesn't give us freedom of speech against ethnic minority, they have their own UK freedom of speech laws. check up www.freedom of speech.com |
|
?
 |
how can you limit free speech?it isn`t free speech then. |
|
Rana
|
yes |
|
have a nice life
|
i wish but we cant cuase then its like communisum and America is about freedom. Its our right. once you take away freedom of speech then what elese are you going to take away. Once you go down that path you are going down what is called a "slippery slope". It's in our Bill of Rights, Freedom of speech and i dont think that should be ammended. My personal oppion though.....i really dont want to listen to another rap song that has like 50 curses in it that they have to bleep out. How and i supposed to sing along with bleeps? |
|
gotta be Stella
|
then you are contradicting Freedom of Speech... |
|
Rick V
|
There already are limits for freedom of speech. Hate litterature for example. slander, racial slurs |
|
Joshua
|
I am not even allowed to post what I think on this site because of keyword filtering. Some freedom of speech here. Every time I try to post a message a paragraph or more some words I type are rejected. And of course server returns an error. Shortening the message returns the same error, but removal of key words works like a charm. I wonder what People Really think, not just the people who don't get filtered. |
|
|
|
|
No Spam
Adult 
Gambling
Unfinished
Deception
Plagiarism
Not English
