What do you think of freedom of speech?

[Invincible 2,092]

Every voice has the right to be heard. Even ones you find unpleasant.

 

Whatever hurts you can be dealt with in a civil manner; you have just the right to voice your opinion. But suppressing another's opinion is nothing short of bullying and is probably one of the ugliest traits people can have out there. 

[CT-1138 3,183]

Freedom of speech with respect taken into consideration is best. I believe that you have the right to be an asshole, but that doesn't exclude you from the right to be called out on it by your peers.

[spits 71]

I think with freedom always comes responsibility to say the right thing at the right time.  Although I don't condone terrorism at all, I'd say some of those cartoons were like a red flag to the bull.  They were made with the objective of taunting.  That to me is irresponsible.  I don't think it justifies terrorism though.  Terrorism is criminal and wrong in the extreme.  I just think people should have at least a little respect for one another and for our beliefs.  Don't have to accept the beliefs of someone else, debate it yes, but don't have to ridicule it  in order to debate it.

[Not_active 732]

UK be like:

 

 

 

That sort of logic won't make things last very long.

[Mesme Rize 15,687]

Freedom of speech is of course good.

 

But there is something that most people seem to forget, when they think of it. Freedom of speech dosen't mean freedom of consequences.

[Guest]

“If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.” 

[CandyStrike 603]

I believe in freedom of speech but not in absolute freedom.  I don't believe you should be able to say things that incite violence.  So you can't go on TV and say "kill this guy" or something like that.

[~Chaos~ 3,967]

As long as you respect each other in what you say, then it's all good. People spill hatred because of it though.

 

Just think before you say things.

[Nine 707]

I think freedom of speech is great because it encourages individual responsibility of thought and action. People may say what they like, and everyone else has the right, and I think the responsibility, to think about what they've heard and respond appropriately.

[Silver Letter 1,832]

I support freedom. Speech should be a universal right without exceptions. The human right to speech should override all human laws.

[ChoroChii 284]

People should be allowed to say what they want to say but I believe they need to realize the repercussions. 

Basically, the first amendment says citizens can say what they want about the government without getting arrested.

Employers are still allowed to fire you if you say something they don't like, so "I can say whatever cuz freedom of speech!" is not very appropriate and is often used as an excuse to be a jerk.

 

You can also use slurs and say they're just words all you want but that is not going to stop me from thinking lowly of you.

Edited February 2, 2015 by Princess Sapphire

[ARagY 1,152]

If I was a leader of a country, I would not be above suppressing it to keep the country flowing in the direction I was chosen (most likely case) to lead it towards. It takes a second hand seat behind preservation of culture and various controls. And this is where I get flamed, lol.

[Lisa 5,553]

Freedom of speech in my opinion should only be allowed if it's constructive and not deconstructive. 

Edited February 2, 2015 by Flitter

[KatonRyu 1,033]

My motto is 'Live Free or Die', so I'm firmly in favor of freedom of speech. Especially since if we give it up, the terrorists will have won. Basically you should be able to say whatever you want, but I do think there should be a reason to say what you say. If you just insult people for the sake of it, I think you're abusing your right to freedom of speech.

 

However on the flip side of things, many rational arguments will insult certain people. (Please don't seek anything in particular behind these words, I don't intend them to be interpreted like that) A well-defended opinion can still be offensive, but I still think you should be allowed to voice them. No one is forced to agree with you, and I don't think anyone should assume a negative opinion is about them specifically.

 

Clashing opinions make for interesting debate, and when two people maturely argue opposite views, they may find they have things in common. Of course, they don't have to agree about anything as long as they understand each other's views and respect them. That is where things go wrong so often. People don't want to hear opposite views anymore and try to silence anyone who would voice them. If we as a species could get over that irrational hatred of other opinions, we could be so much more.

[Wicked Funky 2,955]

I think freedom of speech is something evryone should be allowed to have, but i also think we need to handle it with great responibility and pay respect to each others opineons, thoughts and beliefs.

 

I feel lucky living in Sweden where freedom of speech is an important basic human right and i can express my opineon and thoughts.

[Admiral Regulus 2,769]

I don't always agree with what people say, but I always respect their rights to say it.

[Scootaloodle 1,623]

I support democratic values greatly, which freedom of speech most certainly falls under.

 

I think people should have the right to think and say whatever they want be it bad or good things being said. 

[Hidey 2,836]

I think it would be a good idea.

 

I really believe in it, though I'm not sure that anyone actually has it.

 

This sums up my belief:

 

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"

 

 

[Moonbutt 87]

I think it's great to have your own opinion, but there's also a time to not say anything. Bullying for instance, cyber-bulling as well. If these types of people had restrictions to freedom of speech, it might inhibit them from saying things they aren't supposed to, which might mean people would be more respectful. Sure, there are those who break the rules, but there are always consequences. Having too much freedom to say what you want or having too strict of rules are both wrong, having a balance is probably much more difficult. I'm not a law-guru with these sorts, I just keep to myself and not say things that I know will hurt someone.

[VulpineTaco 525]

I don't think anyone on this forum would say "You know what I really hate? Freedom of speech."

With that out of the way, freedom of speech means that the government can't shut you up, but if you're being hosted by a private company, they have every right to fire you if you say something they don't like. And freedom of speech applies to comments that may be considered sexist, racist, homophobic, or misogynistic. That doesn't mean that you SHOULD say such things, but you can without the fear of punishment from the law, and everyone has the right to be offended by those things. However, freedom of speech should NEVER cover serious threats or false alarms, as those are directly harmful to the day to day operations of life.

[Shanks 10,816]

Employers are still allowed to fire you if you say something they don't like, so "I can say whatever cuz freedom of speech!" is not very appropriate and is often used as an excuse to be a jerk.

That is true that free speech dosen't mean free from repercussions but that dosen't change the fact that some employers are taking things too far. 40% of employers are now checking social networking sites of their employees and some even requiring employees to give them their social media passwords which while incriminating yourself online isn't a good idea is still extremely creepy and a violation of the 4th amendment. What employees do on company premises, company accounts and in their name is their business but anything outside that isn't. People often forget just how in bed big business and big government truly are there really isn't much of a distinction at this point if you ask me.

 

 

 

I think it's great to have your own opinion, but there's also a time to not say anything. Bullying for instance, cyber-bulling as well. If these types of people had restrictions to freedom of speech, it might inhibit them from saying things they aren't supposed to,

Maybe some but at what price? Such restrictions require giving the government a greater degree of power which history especially recent history has shown is a bad idea due to the inevitable abuse of power that will result. The problem is a lot of things that people are offended by could simply be called "bullying" and censored as opposed to actual bullying which is indeed a serious problem but one that will always be present to a certain degree and cannot be solved by government.

[Po-Nonimous 583]

Do you really think taking away the rights of a victim just to satisfy the oppressor is going to solve anything? I don't know about you, but freedom of speech is a God given right that should NEVER under any circumstance be taken away.

 

Honestly, I couldn't agree with you more and I'll be glad when the day comes when those masculophobic, hateful radical feminists stop oppressing innocent men who just want to live their lives. It'd be one thing if they really were the victims in all this but they have no right to victimize anyone for speaking their opinions.

 

And, as for freedom of speech: it is everyone's right! and not just those who agree with me.

 

"I may not agree with what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

@@Lunatic Cake,

 

"Freedom of Speech is acceptable as long as the speech itself is not intended to be harmful in my opinion and people should try to not abuse it to spread hate. People should be open minded to a point where offensive comments will be near gone."

 

Freedom of speech is not something that can be "acceptable" or "unacceptable", it is a right that everyone enjoys, no matter what they say. The protection of Freedom of Speech has gone to extremes at times.  To give you an idea of how extreme it can be take a look at this case where the American Civil Liberties Union defended the KKK's right to freedom of speech.

 

Of course the Klu Klux Klan is a bigoted, racist organization that encourages and promotes hatred and hate speech but, according to the Constitution of the United States, they still have the right to say what they do, whether we like it or not, whether we agree with it or not.

 

Now, to say that "people should be open minded to the point where offensive comments will be near gone is, to me, an application of Social Marxism - a kind of social dictatorship and oppression - where people are afraid to speak out for fear that they might offend someone.

 

In a better world people would be more thoughtful, more mindful of each other and less worried about the things they say because, if people were more thoughtful about each other they wouldn't have to worry about what they say to each other because the consideration would already be there.

 

The day someone tells me that I cannot say a thing because it might hurt somebody's feelings, well, that's the day that freedom of speech ends!

 

Now this is perfectly appropriate:

 

Let's say you see someone on the street and they're doing something wrong that you know is wrong. Are you going to not try to stop them? Will you not say something for fear that you might offend them? I certainly hope not!

 

There are times when it's right and appropriate to speak out against a thing if you know that it's wrong, no matter if you offend other people by saying it. That's also freedom of speech and the day you let someone silence your opinion because it might offend someone is the day you let them take your freedom of speech away!

 

 

[ChoroChii 284]

 40% of employers are now checking social networking sites of their employees and some even requiring employees to give them their social media passwords 

I think they have a right to check social media. It's public and they have to make sure their employees aren't showing any behavior that could damage the company. I wouldn't want certain people representing me.

 

Never heard of the password one. That shouldn't be happening. 

[Shanks 10,816]

I think they have a right to check social media. It's public and they have to make sure their employees aren't showing any behavior that could damage the company. I wouldn't want certain people representing me.

Companies as well as individuals are already protected by libel/slander laws so adding an extra privilege to corporations like this that individuals will likely never have completely spits in the face of equal protection under the law and amounts to said company owning their employees which is disturbingly close to slavery. What is infuriating to me is that legally speaking corporations are people which even putting aside the logical absurdity of that, they in many ways they are treated better than people are and this is a good example of that. Yes there is no expectation of complete privacy online but there should at least be enough of one to know that employers, the government and other authority figures aren't trying to spy on you. Exactly how is this any different than eaves dropping on someones offline conversation even if it may sometimes be in a public place?

[ChoroChii 284]

 which is disturbingly close to slavery.

 

..It's kind of hard to take this seriously, I'm sorry.