• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should there be any limits on Freedom of Speech? [W:57]

Thunder said:
agreed. so even though the 1st Amendment says "Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech", most of us agree that common-sense laws that indeed restrict freedom of speech, is necessary.
Click to expand...

Absolutely disagree. It's the same as the Patriot Acts and other encroachments. They pick a really, really awful thing and say they need more power to prevent that awful thing. Ie., "We need the power to arrest and indefinitely detain, and to wire tap without warrants, to stop the terrorists." Then, once they have the power, they use it however the hell they want on absolutely anyone they want. Giving them the power to quash public speech, "To stop the haters," would be the same thing.

Give the government the power to outlaw speech, and then they'll grow their definition of illegal speech without end. That's not a slippery slope, either, it's that you cannot specifically define illegal speech without creating the device that can be used to further restrict public debate and dissent. It could easily become the case that any public voicing of opposition either to military actions or to public policy on homosexuality would be prosecuted, perhaps arguing that the family of a fallen soldier may see the dissent and become hurt by it -- and if those opinions are illegal, any others could be added.

I would definitely like to see them busted down for malicious litigation, which seems to be their ultimate aim in all of this, but not for voicing unpopular opinions, no matter how offensive. Once the government can charge you with voicing the wrong opinion, it's game over for the USA.
 
So long as the individual engaging his/her right to free speech is not infringing on the freedoms of another individual...no there should be no limits.

Protestors often block streets and access to buildings.. Etc
Which infringes on other's rights to safely travel..etc.
That is why permits should be required to properly plan the event, such as the need to reroute traffic.
 
So long as the rights of others are not infringed upon (and convenience does not equal rights, BTW); then one should be free to do as they like.
 
Blocking streets in downtown NYC is not free speech its civil disobedience. Apples and oranges.
What is your meaning of "limits"? All rights have restrictions.
 
1751Texan said:
Blocking streets in downtown NYC is not free speech its civil disobedience. Apples and oranges.
What is your meaning of "limits"? All rights have restrictions.
Click to expand...

Ikari said:
So long as the rights of others are not infringed upon (and convenience does not equal rights, BTW); then one should be free to do as they like.
Click to expand...

My statement was written in context to the OP of this thread.
Read the question as it was written.
It specifically referred to protestors and permits.
The ability to travel down a street is a convenience. Our safety is a right.
You can not legally put spike strips down in the middle of a road because it infringes on the safety of others. Just as you cannot legally stand in the middle of a public road as it infringes on the safety of yourself.
I would encourage you to stand in the middle of broadway though at 5p.m. if you think this is a right.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk 2
 
Ikari said:
So long as the rights of others are not infringed upon (and convenience does not equal rights, BTW); then one should be free to do as they like.
Click to expand...

Its sunny and 70 degrees here this afternoon.

Let us say that some first graders are in class at the local elementary school and the have their windows open because the school is old and there is no AC. May I go and stand on the public sidewalk and scream sexual profanities and obscenities at the nearby school?
 
CHARMtheMEDIA said:
My statement was written in context to the OP of this thread.
Read the question as it was written.
It specifically referred to protestors and permits.
The ability to travel down a street is a convenience. Our safety is a right.
You can not legally put spike strips down in the middle of a road because it infringes on the safety of others. Just as you cannot legally stand in the middle of a public road as it infringes on the safety of yourself.
I would encourage you to stand in the middle of broadway though at 5p.m. if you think this is a right.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk 2
Click to expand...

Safety is not a right, you have a right to life which grants ability to resist force against such. But that doesn't guarantee safety. Safety is secondary to freedom. And in freedom, there is little safety.
 
haymarket said:
Its sunny and 70 degrees here this afternoon.

Let us say that some first graders are in class at the local elementary school and the have their windows open because the school is old and there is no AC. May I go and stand on the public sidewalk and scream sexual profanities and obscenities at the nearby school?
Click to expand...

They can close the windows.

Though perchance you could also not be a dick.
 
haymarket said:
Its sunny and 70 degrees here this afternoon.

Let us say that some first graders are in class at the local elementary school and the have their windows open because the school is old and there is no AC. May I go and stand on the public sidewalk and scream sexual profanities and obscenities at the nearby school?
Click to expand...

You may, but you probably shouldn't. You would probably be arrested for disturbing the peace or disorderly conduct.
Some people want to interpret the constitution too literally.
Does the right to bear arms mean I should be able to walk into a public courthouse with an AK47?
The 7th amendment says I have a right to take civil action and a trial by jury for any matters where the value in controversy exceeds $20.
Does that mean I need to take every person to court that owes me 20 bucks?
Seriously, some people need to use common sense.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk 2
 
Ikari said:
Safety is not a right, you have a right to life which grants ability to resist force against such. But that doesn't guarantee safety. Safety is secondary to freedom. And in freedom, there is little safety.
Click to expand...
So I can punch you in the face, and there are no laws which would prevent a police officer from arresting me?
Your only recourse would be a civil lawsuit?
Presenting imminent danger and possible harm is not grounds enough to be illegal, and you have no right to demand my arrest?
Standing in the middle of an intersection not only presents imminent danger and possible harm to yourself, but others as well.
There are laws protecting us from such things.
Perhaps I should have replaced right to safety, with "right to not be harmed by others"
Seriously... Did I even have to go there?
Do you get it now????

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk 2
 
CHARMtheMEDIA said:
So I can punch you in the face, and there are no laws which would prevent a police officer from arresting me?
Your only recourse would be a civil lawsuit?
Presenting imminent danger and possible harm is not grounds enough to be illegal, and you have no right to demand my arrest?
Standing in the middle of an intersection not only presents imminent danger and possible harm to yourself, but others as well.
There are laws protecting us from such things.
Perhaps I should have replaced right to safety, with "right to not be harmed by others"
Seriously... Did I even have to go there?
Do you get it now????

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk 2
Click to expand...

Now you're talking about different things other than "safety". The law is in place to protect and proliferate the rights of the individual. A system as such in which the individual is free to exercise their rights is in fact rather dangerous because the government is restricted from many actions against the individual less they have evidence they can present to the courts to get permission. Privacy, arms, press, speech, etc; can all be abused and given enough people will be abused and someone will suffer because of it. Now once someone's rights have been infringed upon, the government may justly respond. It's not to say that they can't. But free is not and never will be safe.

Do you get it now??????????
 
Ikari said:
They can close the windows.

Though perchance you could also not be a dick.
Click to expand...

Why should they have to make thirty children- or better yet - hundreds of children uncomfortable in a hot stuffy classroom because some idiot wants to shout profanities?
 
haymarket said:
Why should they have to make thirty children- or better yet - hundreds of children uncomfortable in a hot stuffy classroom because some idiot wants to shout profanities?
Click to expand...

Lol! He is saying words my little babies can't handle! That is so stupid.
 
Ikari said:
Now you're talking about different things other than "safety". The law is in place to protect and proliferate the rights of the individual. A system as such in which the individual is free to exercise their rights is in fact rather dangerous because the government is restricted from many actions against the individual less they have evidence they can present to the courts to get permission. Privacy, arms, press, speech, etc; can all be abused and given enough people will be abused and someone will suffer because of it. Now once someone's rights have been infringed upon, the government may justly respond. It's not to say that they can't. But free is not and never will be safe.

Do you get it now??????????
Click to expand...

You are confusing freedom with rights.
I am free to punch you in the face.
I do not have the right to.
You are free to stand in the middle of a road.
You do not have the right to.
Do not confuse your right to freedom, with freedom to not do right.
One is constitutional, the other is not.
 
Last edited:
haymarket said:
Why should they have to make thirty children- or better yet - hundreds of children uncomfortable in a hot stuffy classroom because some idiot wants to shout profanities?
Click to expand...

Why do we allow those Westboro people to stand outside funerals picketing?
 
CHARMtheMEDIA said:
You are confusing freedom with rights.
I am free to punch you in the face.
I do not have the right to.
You are free to stand in the middle of a road.
You do not have the right to.
Do not confuse your right to freedom, with freedom to not do right.
One is constitutional, the other is not.
Click to expand...

You do not have the right to punch me in the face because that act inherently violates my own rights. Yet government isn't running around ensuring everyone has boxing gloves either. Someone could very well punch me in the face and it takes that act before government can intervene.
 
Ikari said:
You do not have the right to punch me in the face because that act inherently violates my own rights. Yet government isn't running around ensuring everyone has boxing gloves either. Someone could very well punch me in the face and it takes that act before government can intervene.
Click to expand...

I am sorry but you are completely wrong. We as a people are free to do anything, but do not have a right to do anything.
You seem to have this completely warped and misconstrued perception that it's ok until the action occurs and then once it harms someone else then it's not ok because of the damage done.
Am I correct?
So you are telling me that if I threw a very weak punch and did zero visible damage to you, well then I am fine. After all I am within my rights to punch you by your standards, and what right of yours has been violated? Your not harmed. It is now merely physical contact.
If I saw a smudge of food on your face and wiped it off without you asking. The police might consider me weird, they might even tell me dont do it again...but I haven't damaged you and cannot be arrested.
So basically you are telling me if I punched you in the face in front of a cop, but was a lousy throw..the cop would say "no big deal"
How about if I threw a punch at you and missed?
Fact is even the intent is not within my rights, thus if I threw a punch and missed... Even though I did not punch you I would be arrested if the cops saw it. Do you honestly think the cops would say "wait, he is within his rights to punch him. We have to wait until he violates the rights of the guy he is trying to hit before we can do anything."
Seriously, I dont know how much more I can dumb this down for you, and I am beginning to question, are you debating just for the sake of debate, or are you really that ignorant?


Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk 2
 
CHARMtheMEDIA said:
I am sorry but you are completely wrong. We as a people are free to do anything, but do not have a right to do anything.
You seem to have this completely warped and misconstrued perception that it's ok until the action occurs and then once it harms someone else then it's not ok because of the damage done.
Am I correct?
So you are telling me that if I threw a very weak punch and did zero visible damage to you, well then I am fine. After all I am within my rights to punch you by your standards, and what right of yours has been violated? Your not harmed. It is now merely physical contact.
If I saw a smudge of food on your face and wiped it off without you asking. The police might consider me weird, they might even tell me dont do it again...but I haven't damaged you and cannot be arrested.
So basically you are telling me if I punched you in the face in front of a cop, but was a lousy throw..the cop would say "no big deal"
How about if I threw a punch at you and missed?
Fact is even the intent is not within my rights, thus if I threw a punch and missed... Even though I did not punch you I would be arrested if the cops saw it. Do you honestly think the cops would say "wait, he is within his rights to punch him. We have to wait until he violates the rights of the guy he is trying to hit before we can do anything."
Seriously, I dont know how much more I can dumb this down for you, and I am beginning to question, are you debating just for the sake of debate, or are you really that ignorant?


Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk 2
Click to expand...

I'm well more intelligent than you. You don't want to start that war, you're a mental midget compared to me. And that's not cocky pretentiousness, that's just measured fact.

You cannot punch me because that act inherently violates my own rights. At no point did I say it had to do damage, I don't know what sort of retard would get that out of what was written there; but it would have to be a massive one. I said the punch had to be thrown before the government does something. The government does not preemptively go around stopping people from swinging their arms around. It takes the act of you throwing the punch for the government to be able to do anything about it.

Please quit being stupid. If you're going to jump to conclusions and hysterics; at least try to make it have a little something to do with what was written and not completely made up BS by a mental midget who can't comprehend English.
 
Ikari said:
I'm well more intelligent than you. You don't want to start that war, you're a mental midget compared to me. And that's not cocky pretentiousness, that's just measured fact.
Click to expand...

And how is that a measured fact?
Don't bother stating credentials. There is nothing you or I could state on here that could be verified or not disputed.
The statement you just made, in my opinion, shows your level of intelligence.

Tell me, if I throw a punch at you and miss in plain sight of the police.
Would I the police attempt to stop me from throwing another punch yes or no?

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk 2
 
Last edited:
As I said, the act of you throwing a punch is an act which inherently infringes upon my rights.
 
Ikari said:
As I said, the act of you throwing a punch is an act which inherently infringes upon my rights.
Click to expand...

Please answer my question ... Yes or no.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk 2
 
Ikari said:
As I said, the act of you throwing a punch is an act which inherently infringes upon my rights.
Click to expand...
Oh really????
Ikari said:
Safety is not a right, you have a right to life which grants ability to resist force against such. But that doesn't guarantee safety. Safety is secondary to freedom. And in freedom, there is little safety.
Click to expand...

These are your words oh intelligent one. I didn't say them you did.
If safety is secondary to freedom. I can throw punches at you all day long, so long as I miss.
According to you, Mr. Genius, I not only have the freedom to throw a punch, but a right to as well.
Therefore, my right to freedom supersedes your right to safety. And, so long as I am not hitting you the police would have no right to stop me, lest they infringe on my rights.
Unless of course you are wrong. But with your God complex, I doubt you will admit to that.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk 2
 
Last edited:
digsbe said:
Of course there should be limits. Permits are necessary to ensure that all citizens have equal access to public property. It would be wrong for a group to occupy public space and refuse to leave and thus denying others access to public property.

Also, freedom of speech does not give someone license to freely disturb the peace. They don't have the right to use a megaphone at 2am and shout their political beliefs to the sleeping world. You don't have the right to protest on someone else's property under the fact that you have freedom of speech.

The government should not censor any speech or idea. They shouldn't tell someone that their opinions are illegal to hold and promote. However, the government does have an obligation to keep the peace and ensure that when people exercise their right to freedom of speech they are not infringing upon the rights and peace of others.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure I agree with this completely. We already have safety laws and peace laws that protect the public from disturbances or unsafe conditions. A permit will not make the situation safe or maintain the peace. The only purpose of a permit, in the case of a large protest event, would be to allow civil authorities to know who is in charge of the protest. Even then, citizens are responsible for their own individual behavior, and even those in charge of the protest are not directly responsible for individual acts.
 
Last edited:
CHARMtheMEDIA said:
Oh really????

These are your words oh intelligent one. I didn't say them you did.
If safety is secondary to freedom. I can throw punches at you all day long, so long as I miss.
According to you, Mr. Genius, I not only have the freedom to throw a punch, but a right to as well.
Therefore, my right to freedom supersedes your right to safety. And, so long as I am not hitting you the police would have no right to stop me, lest they infringe on my rights.
Unless of course you are wrong. But with your God complex, I doubt you will admit to that.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk 2
Click to expand...

No, you're being stupid is all. Safety is not a right. You will not be safe in a free society as people are free to choose their actions and given enough people, someone will choose to act in a way which infringes upon the rights of others. We do not preemptively control that. You taking a swing at me is an act that violates my rights, once you do something of the sort I am legally able to respond and government force can be used against you. But prior to that point, you are not restricted in swinging your arms. You are not made to wear boxing gloves in case you do take a swing at someone. Response happens AFTER you make the action. Because we do not preemptively control this, there is no guarantee that you won't take a swing at someone. You are going to be able to do so because it's a free society. However once you take an action which does infringe upon the rights of others, government force can be called into play.

Maybe I'm talking above your head, it's possible I suppose. But it's all very clear if you wish to take the time to read and comprehend what has been said.

And it's Dr. Genius, thank you very much.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom