Blasted paper assignment from class. Need ideas.

Basically the question is about freedom of speech. Should people be given right to say anything, publish anything and share any idea without any restrictions and regulations? Or is it better for limitations?

Presonally, there needs to be few limitations for certain case, but I can't think of many at this moment. Possibly, at a time of war, talks about important information about the country should be watched. Or, contents with the intent of production of destructive weapons (like bomb-making) and detailed plots should not be shared. Or, certain cases of extreme defamation. But, some activities, such as flag-burning, could be allowed.

Bah, thoughts?

I'd say allow anything that doesn't pose a threat. Like you said; weapon schematics, vital strategic information, etc, should not be published. Flag burning should be allowed by all means. Yeah, some people find it insulting, and too bad for them, because that's the whole point of it. If you're going to supress this kind of freedom of speech, while you're at it, why not ban giving the finger and cussing? Whatever you do or say, chances are someone somewhere will be offended by it.

As long as it doesn't infringe someone else's rights or risk any type of security things, it should all be allowed.

People get away with too much under free speech, flag burning shouldn't be allowed, and in many cases, neither should giving the finger or cussing.
To my knowledge, I could go up to a police officer right now, look him in the eyes and say "**** you pig" and get away with it. I think that's awful.
And Flex, don't try that "well SOMEONE will be offended" bull****, because there is a difference between someone being offended, and the intent to offend, and no one burns a flag without the intention of being offensive.
Free speech was intended to protect people with different ideas and beliefs from being persecuted, now it's being used to protect *******s.

There was a row over this in the Netherlands a while ago, with the murder of Theo van Gogh. As a public figure (filmmaker, actor) he brainlessly dissed everything in sight, especially islam and fundamentalism, and he got murdered for it, resulting of course in a new wave of anti-... everything different.

I thought it was a pretty stupid dude, but I don't think he should've been killed for it.

SO ERM wtf was I trying to say. Stay in school and eat your vegetables.

You just violated your own rule.

1. It's not a rule
2. "In many cases"

For example:
Tom you're a real s***head!
-ok-

Mr. President, you're a real s***head!
-not okay-

You like police states, eh? The problem is not that law allows such behavior. The problem is that so many people are raised to have no manners at all.

So you aren't allowed to express your opinions to people, with your own words and gestures?

Seriously, that's a horrible way to look at it. Censoring out all that's just ANOTHER step closer to the ever-so-wonderful socialist state (if you can't tell, I think socialism is a joke. Just so you know that past bit was SARCASM).

umm, I don't think you know what socialism is.

Yoshi talking about other people expressing their opinions, that's rich.
Note: F*** you is not an opinion.

....

You should be able to express your hate for a country and the president of said country.

We've been able to do so for over a hundred years, I'm not willin to go back.


And of course there is a need for regulations. Otherwise stuff like Child Porn ends up getting published in magazines.

So witty, sir Mikus.

I never do that, though. That's SAJN you're thinking of. Nice try.

And Flex--well I know Socialism is technically an economical system, but people identify with it better than they do with communism. People freak out at the word communism. :\

Communism is pretty rockin' on paper..

It's people that make it not work.

No limits, information should be free, including weapons schematics.

\m/ freedom of speech

If the government doesn't want their secret stuff published, they ought to keep it more secret.

Holy crap I agree with Brad.

Something's wrong here.

I don't think we need laws to protect standards of common decency.

Communism is also just an economical system. Maybe the word you're looking for is authoritarianism? The two have often been linked throughout history, but they otherwise have little to do with eachother. As a matter of fact you'll find that more 'leftist' nations like the EU or Canada will often have considerably less censoring than nations like the United States. Not to imply that they're directly related.

Why is the president any different from Tom?

Capitalism too.

I hate people.

I believe freedom of expression should be allowed, in all forms. However, you then get into sticky problems like military secrets and hate laws. Say someone is using their freedom of speech to proclaim their hatred for Jews. Is it right to violate their freedom by stopping them from doing that? What takes precedence over the other? I'm not going to pretend that I know what is right; but here in Canada, the supreme court ruled that in a situation like this, it's more important to protect the rights of minority groups than to protect freedom of expression.

I think that free speech should have some limits - yelling "fire" in a theater, confidentiality of military plans, etc. - but things like saying, "**** you, Mr. President," gay pride, and flag burning should be protected under the 1st Amendment, as should Neo-Nazis marching, KKK rallies, and the like.

It's not that I support the above groups - I support their right to express themselves. Censoring them falls under the "where do we stop?" category.

I agree with Wolfy.

Yelling "fire" in a theatre should not be banned by law, but owners of such theatres should have the power over their own property to restrict such activities. Posting military plans online should not be banned to the public, but the military should have the control over its own speech to decide who gets to see it.

Protecting free speech means that we shouldn't restrict ANY speech. Who decides if a phrase is offensive? Mikus? George W. Bush? Big Brother?

Words in favor of individuals in Nazi Germany were seen as "dangerous" to the state, a "security risk", and were burned. "You can't yell fire in a theatre" means the same as "you can't yell FREE THE JEWS at a Nazi rally."

Mmm...I don't think that can work.

Yelling "fire" in a crowded place will only incite panic and chaos. You are more than likely to cause individuals harm. Yelling "FREE THE JEWS" in a Nazi rally will only mean your death at the hands of the state and/or the populous.

"I may not agree with what you say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it." - Voltaire

Give me 10 minutes to talk away my ugly face and I will bed
the Queen of France - Voltaire

"Anything too stupid to be spoken is sung."

-Voltaire

Can we throw eggs at them?

But that's physical violence.

Any day with boobs and free beer is a great day - Voltaire

I wouldn't throw them hard!

Except how you define "will only incite panic and choas." That's the reason it should be in the hands of the theatre, not the organization with troops and guns. Saying Free the Jews might have been considered an act that would cause dis-order to the "order" of Nazi Germany.

When someone yells "fire," everyone runs for the exits. People have been trampled and killed. It doesn't just cause disorder, it directly endangers the lives of everyone in the room.

There are limits to free speech.

The biggest one is "fighting words" - defined something like "words designed to elicit a an inflammatory response with little or no social or practical value" or something like that. Basically, words that aren't worth anything and cause trouble.

By the way, though not officially (and has been a point of contention in several cases), the general standard is that speech can only be identified as 'fighting words' by an official US Constitutional officer, or by a judge, federal or supreme court, etc. Which means unless it's blatantly obvious people like police, congressmen, etc can't be expected to be put in a position to make a judgement, so it's hard to enforce this thing.

Non-responsive :p Look, I agree yelling "fire!" is dangerous. But I disagree on who needs to regulate that. There isn't a single theatre owner that would want a customer to cause commotion on their property that could lead to death---it'd be bad for business. We can always count on people in power to act in their own interest.

And that's the problem. While allowing people to regulate speech acts on their private property solves most of the problems cited on this thread (along with allowing people to keep their speech secret with enforcement by government [that would be an instance of government protecting a right, therefore intervention = justified])... allowing government to define what dangerous speech is probably bad. But enough of the Nazi example, let's use Pommy's definition.



**** has no practical value and many times saying **** you is designed to provoke an inflammatory response. :banned:

What is trouble? Is troubable the runnaway slave? The protester? Those Vietnam protested were just trying to cause trouble. They aren't practical---they're just getting in the way of our war effort! Martin Luther King, Jr's words create division---our great, white country needs to be unified!

Sound ridiculous? Of course you can give reasons why these examples don't meet the definition. But don't assume government will follow your rational perspective. The only thing we can assume is that the government, a human machine, will act in its own self interest. We need the freedom to protect ours.

Also, on the other side of the coin. Imagine the loopholes lawyers will find in these laws. "His intent in screaming fire was genuine concern when he saw the grease fire at the concession stand." 'He didn't intend his speech to offend anyone." Of course, many lawyers actually suck and might not put on such a good defense for defendents who can't afford Johnny Cochran (or equivilents who are still alive)... Free speech comes at a cost, I suppose. It's good to be able to afford it.

edit: just for reference, when I started my post I didn't see Pommy's edit. Don't think it changes much, though. :p

Neo-Nazism and KKK rallies I don't think should really fall under freedom of speech. It's more freedom to be a douche. Seriously, it's not their speech that is the problem, it's their very existance.

Freedom of speech should include freedom to express hatred. Otherwise there is no such thing as freedom of speech. The whole point of those laws are to allow people to express their opinions EVEN IF EVERYONE DISAGREES AND HATES THEM FOR IT. If you start banning certain forms then it's not free speech at all, it's quite the opposite.

We can pass laws all day banning racist language---racism will live on. Maybe instead of trying to get the government to meddle in the affairs of its citizens, we should use OUR freedom of speech to express our disagreement of that hate speech, to stand up for the oppressed. I don't regret that there wasn't a law stopping a student at my school from saying "Gays should die." but I regret that I didn't feel courageous enough to speak out against that horrible bigotry.