Should there be limits to freedom of speech? If yes how?
Answers:
Speech designed to incite hatred or prejudice should be limited.
Not in my opinion
There are limits to free speech - as in you can't incite a riot...etc.
then you are contradicting Freedom of Speech...
no! apart from no racist comments...
and we shud b able to speak our minds to adults (like teachers)!! we are all equal
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.
cant control peoples mouths.
you can put laws in place to try and silence people but they will always find a voice
There are limits to freedom of speech.
There are limits, the old example of yelling fire in a crowed theatre comes to mind.
Freedom of speech is only limited if it infringes on someone else freedoms.
NO, its one of the few things we have left.
What's the point of having freedom of speech if theres limits ?
There already are limits for freedom of speech. Hate litterature for example. slander, racial slurs
There should never be restrictions on freedom of speech god do we want another zimbabwe, china, north korea, NO
nope
yes there is a dick head posting racist questions in football,
and that should not be allowed. you should not have the right to abuse people physically or verbally without good reason and should take responsibility for your actions.
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.
There are limits, you cannot infringe on some one Else's rights. verbally or physically.
Yes, such as yelling fire in a crowded theater. But generally Free Speech needs to be protected at all cost.
No everyone should have the right to speek there own mind.
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.
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?
how can you limit free speech?it isn`t free speech then.
yes
There are limits to free speech: you can't yell fire in a crowded theatre if there isn't a fire.
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.
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.
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.
Here in the US we have much freedom of speech. But you can't scream "fire" in a crowded theatre because people will get hurt. You can't lie about other people, accuse them of murder, because that's purgery, and other people would get hurt. You can't commit slander or liable, because that involves telling lies about other people, which hurts them. There have to be some limits.
Just like in this freelawanswer.com site, there are people on here trying to sell things (Spam) and trying to make dates, and making arguments just to provoke controversy. There needs to be a little bit more control of speech on this site to keep the "crazy folks" under control so that the site works for people who have real questions.
there are already limits to free speech. The courts have held that certain types of speech which cause injury are prohibited. For example yelling fire in a crowded theater just to watch everyone run. Other limitations on free speech have also been imposed by hate crime and equal rights legislation. While it may be ignorant and unenlightened, bigotry is constitutionally protected. People have a right to their opinion, no matter how messed up it is. But to state that you would not like to have tennants of such and such race or religion will get you in hot water with the federal govt under the fair housing acts. Also there seems to be a trend in society today to stifle any opinion that is not politically correct or unpopular with the masses. Speaking out against homosexuality gets you branded as evil or a religious nut in the media. I think there is room in the world for all opinions, but there seems to be a leaning in our society towards institutionalized "Group think". Maybe george orwell had it right, just missed the date.
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.
The answers post by the user, for information only, FreeLawAnswer.com does not guarantee the right.
Answer question:
More Law Questions and Answers: