# Humanities & Anthropology > Philosophy >  Should freedom of speech be unlimited?

## American Idiot

I agree with total freedom of speech for every single human, regardless if I actually like their opinion or not. 

Every single human born with a mouth should have the right to free speech......no exceptions.

It's only when speech turns into action that something should be done about it.

Why is racism always the focal point when it comes to the exercise in free speech debate? How come when a guy calls a woman a b*tch or something like that there is no debate about free speech?
Because, everyone knows that would be stupid.

Free speech should be applied to everyone, including racists, whether you like what they have to say or not.

Free speech is a principle....no one/group should be able to limit it for others at their own pleasure. Not for any reason.

except for maybe in a courtroom when a judge issues a gag order to be placed. And even with that, there should be a very,very good & logical reason for it.

----------


## Kardu

> It's only when speech turns into action that something should be done about it.


I am also for as much freedom and liberty as possible but being a realist I realize that speech can easily be turned into action.
All propaganda and brainwashing is based on that...

----------


## American Idiot

> I am also for as much freedom and liberty as possible but being a realist I realize that speech can easily be turned into action.
> All propaganda and brainwashing is based on that...


 yeah, you're right, it does start with that.

I just think, legally speaking, no one has the right to stop it until it actually gets to the point where people are starting to violently act on it.

----------


## hope

> I just think, legally speaking, no one has the right to stop it until it actually gets to the point where people are starting to violently act on it.



Don`t you think that would be somewhat late, especially for the person/people at whom it is directed?

----------


## American Idiot

> Don`t you think that would be somewhat late, especially for the person/people at whom it is directed?


nope, not at all!

----------


## LeBrok

> I am not racist, but I do agree that racists have the right to free speech with NO limitations
> 
> I agree with total freedom of speech for every single human, regardless if I actually like their opinion or not. 
> 
> Every single human born with a mouth should have the right to free speech......no exceptions.
> 
> It's only when speech turns into action that something should be done about it.
> 
> Why is racism always the focal point when it comes to the exercise in free speech debate? How come when a guy calls a woman a b*tch or something like that there is no debate about free speech?
> ...


I would like to believe that freedom of speech is possible and should be at the base of human rights. Unfortunately, we can find so many instances, so many necessary censoring of speech that I'm having a second thought, if freedom of speech have a chance to be sustained unobstructed in any society.

For example, should we implement freedom of speech in elementary schools and kindergartens? On one hand this is when we should teach, from young age, the new generation about the fundamental right of freedom of speech. On other hand, would any parent agree for their children swearing like plumbers and to talk openly about sexual positions, for example?

Should we absolve all bullies from verbally abusing victims, based on their right to freedom of speech? Mind you that some victims committed suicide over being bullied.

Should we acted on Hitler's words only, not waiting for his actions, we would have saved the world from WW2. 

Consequences of telling all the truth to our boss are quite substantial, and it makes us not to exercise our freedom of speech.

We also don't express our full freedom of speech in our courts of justice, not to be in contempt of the court. Ironically these courts stand on guard of our freedoms, and we swear to tell the truth. One can argue that freedom of speech needs to be limited in courts not to interfere with court procedures, and rightfully so. But here goes our freedom of speech.

I guess the question is what price we are willing to pay for freedom of speech?

We always face the consequence of our speech, in form of action of others to our words. The consequences, precisely the hurtful ones, will always limit our freedom of speech. Either self censored by our compassion, or by our protective laws.

----------


## LeBrok

> I am also for as much freedom and liberty as possible but being a realist I realize that speech can easily be turned into action.
> *All propaganda and brainwashing is based on that...*


I would say it is base on dictator's or government's freedom of speech, and lack of such for citizens.

----------


## American Idiot

> I would like to believe that freedom of speech is possible and should be at the base of human rights. Unfortunately, we can find so many instances, so many necessary censoring of speech that I'm having a second thought, if freedom of speech have a chance to be sustained unobstructed in any society.
> 
> For example, should we implement freedom of speech in elementary schools and kindergartens? On one hand this is when we should teach, from young age, the new generation about the fundamental right of freedom of speech. On other hand, would any parent agree for their children swearing like plumbers and to talk openly about sexual positions, for example?
> 
> Should we absolve all bullies from verbally abusing victims, based on their right to freedom of speech? Mind you that some victims committed suicide over being bullied.
> 
> Should we acted on Hitler's words only, not waiting for his actions, we would have saved the world from WW2. 
> 
> Consequences of telling all the truth to our boss are quite substantial, and it makes us not to exercise our freedom of speech.
> ...


I guess the point I was trying to make is that, IMO, no law or government should be able to arrest or detain someone simply for the words coming out of their mouth......unless maybe when one is making a serious threat to someone's life for example and there is a very real, implied sense of true danger and intent.

That's why I think the people using those words have to be on the verge of taking serious violent action before the law can step in

with a few exceptions. As you said our speech is limited depending on the atmosphere. Such as in a courtroom, and in a school for obvious reasons.

As for bullying, IMO it depends more on the setting. In any school, the authority of that school is in charge and yes they do have the right to censor the speech of the students as most minors do not have the full constitutional rights as an adult, for good reasons.

But if an adult is verbally abusing another adult or if it is done by a student toward another student but is outside the school, then, despite the negative impact it has on the victim, IMHO, no government or legal authority can simply detain or stop someone for verbal abuse.

Again I am speaking in a matter of legality, not morality. Morally the parents can step in or if the harassment carries on into school life then the school authority can step in too in the case of minors or students.

Morally there will always be hurtful consequences to free speech but no government or law of the land has any right to tell citizens what they must believe morally.
Legally, no law or government should be able to stop total free speech.

As for WW2, Hitler and the nazis had already become violent long before the war ever started. It happened gradually. Yes., his speeches and propaganda incited many people but they started out by physically attacking Jewish store owners and even in their early days, the Nazi party had street riots against rival nationalist parties simply for control.

They were already violent from their inception, long before it ever got to the point of actual war and genocide.So, based on that, they could have been stopped early on anyway, before WW2 started, because they were always committing violent acts from the beginning.

As for how people choose to use free speech is up to the individual. Legally every citizen should have the unlimited right to free speech, IMHO. But if whether or not someone wants to be totally honest with their boss ,for example, is simply a matter of personal preference, not free speech in the legal or constitutional sense.

They still have the legal right to be honest and talk to their boss if they so choose. And that is how it should be.
Whatever consequences may come of it, has nothing to do with the right to free speech itself.

Their maybe cultural or personal and even moral reasons why a person may not choose to exercise the right to free speech, but again its up to the individual's free will and no government or law should ever be able to stop someone from exercising their right to free speech.

There should never be a legal reason why a person cant exercise their right to free speech, with some exceptions, like the examples you give- as in a courtroom or a school setting with minors, who have limited constitutional rights anyway.

----------


## American Idiot

Hey, LeBrok.... did you vote for the third option on this poll? I ask because I voted for the third option and it says the only other voter also voted for it......something tells me it might be you....maybe?, no? (LOL)

----------


## Aberdeen

No society has ever embraced free speech without limitations. Libel and slander, and disclosing propriety information that one has promised to keep secret are subject to civil action, and in some countries may also treated as crimes. Sedition is illegal in just about every country, as is the violation of a country's official secrets act. Counselling others to commit a criminal offense is also a criminal offense in most countries. And many countries also outlaw the preaching of hatred against any particular group, and treat serious harassment of individuals as grounds for civil action or prosecution. Only these last examples seem to encounter resistance from many people on the grounds that they limit free speech. But the previous examples I gave are accepted by almost everyone as reasonable restrictions on free speech. When we are discussing free speech, we are never discussing whether it should be unlimited, IMO. We are discussing what limitations are reasonable and necessary.

----------


## Kardu

> I would say it is base on dictator's or government's freedom of speech, and lack of such for citizens.


How about al-kaeda and similar propaganda?

----------


## American Idiot

> How about al-kaeda and similar propaganda?


 Al-Queda doesnt need to use propaganda tools for recruitment. People seek them out, where they are based at. 
They are merely people who are already religious fanatics and meet up with other religious fanatics to commit terrorist activity.
and most of their victims are usually Muslims.....just saying.

----------


## hope

I believe everyone should have freedom of speech. In the past, in some countries, exercising free speech resulted in a person being harshly dealt with. I speak of dictator regimes, where speaking out against those in power resulted in a person being taken from his home and imprisoned ..or worse. Unfortunately there are still some countries where free speaking is a dangerous action, and this should be condemned unreservedly.

However, for those of us who have freedom of speech comes responsibility. How we might choose to use words can have both a positive or negative effect. Take as example Martin Luther King Jr. who spoke for the advancement of civil rights, while always promoting nonviolence or harm to others. Again Mahatma Gandhi, in his quest for independence for India, also advocating peaceful measures and non violence. 

Then on the opposite to this we find those who use free speech negatively, and choose words that "incite" or "manipulate" resulting in violence or even death to others. This is freedom of speech with negative consequences and it is right to have sensible laws to regulate it. No, I don`t think this goes against the point of freedom of speech, rather it takes concern for the outcome such type of talk may provoke.

In regards to the point of a man calling a woman a b****. While she might not be successful, unless you can actually show proof she is in fact such, the woman in question could seek retribution for slander. 

Whilst I advocate freedom of speech, we should not fail to understand the words we use to promote our opinions, beliefs or ideas regarding others may have serious consequences.

----------


## LeBrok

@AI, I'm pretty much in agreement with you.

Although I can't fallow logic of this sentence:




> There should *never be a legal reason* why a person cant exercise their right to free speech, *with some exceptions*, like the examples you give- as in a courtroom or a school setting with minors, who have limited constitutional rights anyway.



Free speech is very precious and should be guarantied by the law, with as few limitations as possible. 

In our free society, government is the least hindrance of free speech, and even the biggest protector. What usually sets limitation on it are private people, private homes, businesses, many websites, etc. I guess, this is were democracy stops and hegemony of parents and owners starts.

----------


## LeBrok

> Hey, LeBrok.... did you vote for the third option on this poll? I ask because I voted for the third option and it says the only other voter also voted for it......something tells me it might be you....maybe?, no? (LOL)


No didn't vote yet, I didn't want to influence you.  :Shocked: 
And 3rd option wasn't meant for idiots, it was for dummies.  :Grin:

----------


## LeBrok

> No society has ever embraced free speech without limitations. Libel and slander, and disclosing propriety information that one has promised to keep secret are subject to civil action, and in some countries may also treated as crimes. Sedition is illegal in just about every country, as is the violation of a country's official secrets act. Counselling others to commit a criminal offense is also a criminal offense in most countries. And many countries also outlaw the preaching of hatred against any particular group, and treat serious harassment of individuals as grounds for civil action or prosecution. Only these last examples seem to encounter resistance from many people on the grounds that they limit free speech. But the previous examples I gave are accepted by almost everyone as reasonable restrictions on free speech. When we are discussing free speech, we are never discussing whether it should be unlimited, IMO. We are discussing what limitations are reasonable and necessary.


Very well said. Was law a part of your education? Life in big modern social groups is very complicated, I guess that's why we have so many laws and even more exceptions.

----------


## L0lec

Lol i am the only one who voted for total freedom of speech. I expected more liberals in this forum : |

----------


## matbir

> Lol i am the only one who voted for total freedom of speech. I expected more liberals in this forum : |


Three points about limitation of freedom of speech without which complex society cannot exist: 
1. Confidential information need to be under legal protection. Otherwise if one spread military information, citizens' lives and properties would be in danger.
2. It shouldn't be allowed to spread false information about any one. (I don't need to explain this)
3. Encouraging any one to commit a crime should be banned.
Keep in mind that there are more reasons to limit freedom of speech.

----------


## L0lec

matbir:
1. You are right here I admit that I wasn't aware of that point.
2. I strongly disagree. How can you detect if imformations are true or false? Only with gestapo tactics this can be achieved. 
This sort of tactics is used all the time by politicians. Wouldn't be better people start thinking seriously of what others say?
3. Police can use also this information to prevent a situation.





> Keep in mind that there are more reasons to limit freedom of speech.



Only an authoritarian would have said something like this.


Conclusion: Total freedom of speech in most cases indicates a civilised society. In todays
world only a few countries was achived.


Many people would sooner die than think; In fact they do so.
-Bertrand Russell

----------


## LeBrok

> matbir:
> 1. You are right here I admit that I wasn't aware of that point.
> 2. I strongly disagree. How can you detect if imformations are true or false? Only with gestapo tactics this can be achieved. 
> This sort of tactics is used all the time by politicians. Wouldn't be better people start thinking seriously of what others say?
> 3. Police can use also this information to prevent a situation.


Total freedoms of any kind is utopia. It would take a country of one man to be completely free. In society, in our reality, we have to compromise our freedoms. However all people should be entitled to as much freedoms as possible, and as long as society/country is successful, orderly and peaceful. Surely it is a very subjective point of view, but the spirit of it should lead the way.




> Conclusion: Total freedom of speech in most cases indicates a civilised society.


Usually it is an illusion. If you slander me in Canada, I'm going to exercise my freedoms too and sue you, and you will pay the price/consequence of exercising your freedom of speech. So, is the freedom of speech totally free?

----------


## khufu

Freedom is freedom of the mind if you good or not

----------


## Angela

Freedom of speech isn't unlimited anywhere to my knowledge. The way that it works in the United States is that you have the right to say anything you wish, about anything you wish, no matter how offensive it might be, and the government has no right to prevent you or punish you for it, with the following exceptions: speech that involves incitement to violence (usually defined as incitement to imminent violence), false statements of fact (slanderous and libelous speech which causes injury), obscenity (primarily sexual obscenity), child pornography, and speech owned by others (copyright and trademark laws) are all exempt from First Amendment protections.

Whether someone's free speech rights have been violated is a matter for judges. The Supreme Court has ruled that no matter how offensive it might be, people can burn a U.S. flag. Publicly funded museums present works of "art" that show a crucifix in a vat of urine, etc. Do I like it? No, I don't, but that's not the standard. 

Private venues are totally different. The rules imposed there are a matter for the "owner" of the venue. In practical terms, however, the private venues will reflect the mores and customs of the surrounding culture and what they consider "acceptable" speech. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United...ech_exceptions

----------


## FurToTheThrone

I do agree with allowing the use of free speech, but, at the same time, people use speech freedoms to the extremes in most cases. I understand that people feel how they feel, such as when someone hung a noose at Duke University, but it is unacceptable to be able to use your freedoms of intents of malice. When you use your freedoms to undermine/neglect someone, you are placing yourself and others that you speak of in danger. I believe you should be able to speak your heart if you want to contribute something positive to the world that can result in the change of a community, not when you are intending to control others or "rid unneeded problems".

----------


## bancroft

I believe freedom of speech with limitation should allow. It is in our human nature that possibility of abusing things are present because, if it isn't true. What is the purpose of divine and human law?

----------


## Dinarid

I have come to appreciate freedom of speech much more that mine is slowly being eroded by "my" country's Islamic government.

----------


## Petros Agapetos

The freedom of speech is our fundamental bulwark against tyranny of the majority. 
Truth is an absolute defense against defamation. If Truth hurts, that's too bad for you, grow a thicker skin.

----------


## Petros Agapetos

What restrictions on the freedom of speech would you support?

Would you ban Robert Spencer from your country for telling the truth about Islam, as he does here?

----------


## Petros Agapetos

_I see that as someone who is against Islam.... but politicians often brand anyone that's opposed to muslims as being 'racist';- even though Islam is an abusive ideology and not a race, since there's white muslims too, just like there's black christians or catholics. In the UK, it would most likely be classified as Islamophobia, or an act of prejudice against muslims and Islam. I am Islamophobic and I have a logical reason to fear the Islamic ideology after seeing so many abusive quotes from the koran book._

----------


## LeBrok

> _I see that as someone who is against Islam.... but politicians often brand anyone that's opposed to muslims as being 'racist';- even though Islam is an abusive ideology and not a race, since there's white muslims too, just like there's black christians or catholics. In the UK, it would most likely be classified as Islamophobia, or an act of prejudice against muslims and Islam. I am Islamophobic and I have a logical reason to fear the Islamic ideology after seeing so many abusive quotes from the koran book._


Knowing old testament and atrocities Christians did in history, and still some of them do in modern times, shouldn't you also be Christianophobic?

----------


## Petros Agapetos

> Knowing old testament and atrocities Christians did in history, and still some of them do in modern times, shouldn't you also be Christianophobic?


I have read the violence of the Old Testament. I find it abhorrent. But I have a few things to say about it. 
The violence of the old testament is descriptive not prescriptive as it is in the Quran. Besides, a great deal of the old testament laws associated with temple worship are no longer valid for Jews, and never have been for Christians. Another point is the evidence from statistics. Whenever there is a terrorist attack, most often the motives are found in the scriptures of Islam, the Quran and the Hidiths. Yet I have not heard of a single case where a Christian blew himself up saying "Jesus is Lord". When Jerry Fallwell starts beheading people in the name of Christ then you might have a point, but otherwise Christian violence is ancient history. Islamic violence is a daily reality.

----------


## LeBrok

> I have read the violence of the Old Testament. I find it abhorrent. But I have a few things to say about it. 
> The violence of the old testament is descriptive not prescriptive as it is in the Quran. Besides, a great deal of the old testament laws associated with temple worship are no longer valid for Jews, and never have been for Christians. Another point is the evidence from statistics. Whenever there is a terrorist attack, most often the motives are found in the scriptures of Islam, the Quran and the Hidiths. Yet I have not heard of a single case where a *Christian blew himself up saying "Jesus is Lord"*. When Jerry Fallwell starts beheading people in the name of Christ then you might have a point, but otherwise Christian violence is ancient history. Islamic violence is a daily reality.


Maybe not today, but In the Name of Lord" most of battles started, on both sides in last 1,500 years in Europe and 500 in America. In Name of Lord Prussians were killed on the last crusade. In Name of Lord people were burning in purifying fire. The list is so long, and I'm sure you know most of it. If Christians or Europeans in general could put aside Bible and become tolerant, I'm sure Muslims can do that too. Well, you should know, that it is possible, you live in Canada and you have Muslim neighbors. Are they about to kill you?

----------


## Petros Agapetos

> Maybe not today, but In the Name of Lord" most of battles started, on both sides in last 1,500 years in Europe and 500 in America. In Name of Lord Prussians were killed on the last crusade. In Name of Lord people were burning in purifying fire. The list is so long, and I'm sure you know most of it. If Christians or Europeans in general could put aside Bible and become tolerant, I'm sure Muslims can do that too. Well, you should know, that it is possible, you live in Canada and you have Muslim neighbors. Are they about to kill you?


No, let's make a distinction here between Muslims and Islam, that is often overlooked. 
There is no Islam without sharia or jihad. This doesn't mean that a person identifying with the religion either knows about nor cares about these passages, but they are there. And as Muslims become more fervently religious and observant, they discover these passages. And since they believe the Quran is written by God, and Muhammad is the excellent example of human conduct, their culture is hostage to the insidious baggage of the Islamic scriptures.

----------


## LeBrok

> No, let's make a distinction here between Muslims and Islam, that is often overlooked. 
> There is no Islam without sharia or jihad. This doesn't mean that a person identifying with the religion either knows about nor cares about these passages, but they are there. And as Muslims become more fervently religious and observant, they discover these passages. And since they believe the Quran is written by God, and Muhammad is the excellent example of human conduct, their culture is hostage to the insidious baggage of the Islamic scriptures.


And all the peaceful and tolerant Muslims around the world are proving you wrong. On one side we have your hypotheses, on other real people living their lives. Sorry, but I will take real life as an indicator who is right.

----------


## bicicleur

> And all the peaceful and tolerant Muslims around the world are proving you wrong. On one side we have your hypotheses, on other real people living their lives. Sorry, but I will take real life as an indicator who is right.


altough you do, you don't want to see it, but Islam fundamentalism is a reality in this world
it is spreading and they find their inspiration in the Quran

----------

