• 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 restrictions to the freedom of speech?

Should there be any restrictions to the freedom of speech

  • Yes, there should be some restrictions

    Votes: 29 80.6%

  • No, there should be no restrictions at all

    Votes: 7 19.4%

  • I don't believe in the freedom of speech

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Total voters
    36
zstep18

zstep18

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 7, 2012
Messages
1,770
Reaction score
537
Location
Somewhere
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Should there be any restrictions to the freedom of speech? Why or why not? If there should be restrictions, what restrictions should there be?
 
I support some that already exist. Speech that falsely and knowingly causes mass hysteria (i.e. "FIRE!" in crowded theater), but only under limited scenarios, for example.
 
Only a 17 year old Ron Paul fan would believe that there should be rights without certain limitations.
 
Absolutely. There are no rights that are totally unrestricted.
 
zstep18 said:
Should there be any restrictions to the freedom of speech? Why or why not? If there should be restrictions, what restrictions should there be?
Click to expand...

Yes, of course there should be as there are. Typically an restriction should be based on some trade off...the cost is far higher than the protected speech. Yelling fire in a theatre. Could result in people trampled/injured/killed compared to the right of some doucher that isn't making any sort of political statement but just being a jerk.
 
Darn, I was hoping I could find a free speech absolutist.
 
Campaign finance. It is nothing but bribery. Money talks, and that's all politicians will listen to. It gives us the best government money can buy.
 
Yes, there should be some restrictions. Slander should be restricted for example. As should inflammatory speech that causes immediate and apparent harm (the classic example being yelling fire in a crowded theater).
 
Sure. For starters, an immediate legal recognition that expenditure of money is not speech, and that corporations are not persons (and thus have no right to "speaking" through buying policy).
 
Sure there should be some in certain situations. Obviously you can't scream fire in a crowded venue or threaten a sitting president's life.

And while we're on the topic, why is it the people that always share their freedom of speech the loudest are often the ones that should be doing it the quietest?

"I believe in freedom of speech, but I believe we should also have the right to comment on freedom of speech."

Stockwell Day
 
Well crap. I accidentally clicked 'no' instead of 'yes'.

Freakin new guys, am I right? :doh
 
Hatuey said:
Only a 17 year old Ron Paul fan would believe that there should be rights without certain limitations.
Click to expand...

Enough said!
 
zstep18 said:
Should there be any restrictions to the freedom of speech? Why or why not? If there should be restrictions, what restrictions should there be?
Click to expand...

Of course. Even speech fails to be a right once it infringes upon the rights of others, or generates undue gain. Plagiarism, false valor, libel, and slander are perfect examples of this.
 
The unalienable right of free speech is the guarantee that government cannot punish you in any way for what you think, what you believe, what opinions you hold, what you say about any of these. It does not presume that you can use speech to infringe on the rights of others.
 
I don't think we should ever restrict free speech but I do think you are accountable for what you say..we have a free press to keep politicans,businesses ,people etc in check, unfortunately they have become lazy and some corrupt ,some will lie to further an agenda but some are very good at what they do, when people are caught blatantly lying I think they should be punished , not severely but make them apologize on national tv .Michele Bachman Rush limbaugh and glen beck should lose their microphones for a few days
 
zstep18 said:
Should there be any restrictions to the freedom of speech? Why or why not? If there should be restrictions, what restrictions should there be?
Click to expand...


Yes and it should have the same limitations that many people like to place on the 2nd amendment. There should waiting periods, registrations, licenses/permits, finger prints submitted,limits on what you can and can't say and mandatory classes.Since religion is the first thing listed in the 1st amendment then obviously it meant that only people who are in a religion can have free speech, have freedom of the press, petition grievances to the government and obviously you need to peaceably assemble in order to be a member of a religion.They didn't have color magazines,internet, radio, computers,TVs, phones,mass printing presses and other technological advances that were not around when the constitution was written. So our founding forefathers couldn't picture that such things, so obviously the government can control the speech on those things.ANd the only megachurch back then was the catholic church so obviously other mega-churches can be banned. (sarcasm)
 
Yes. Most rights have limits due to infringing on others rights. Your rights end where mine begin and vice versa. No such thing as an unlimited right.
 
Before we go any further, can we please get the fire in a crowded theater analogy RIGHT?

It's "shouting fire in a CROWDED theater when THERE IS NO fire" *

*Of course, seeing smoke pour out, you see no fire, but would have reason to believe one may be going on

Very very important distinction.

;)
 
Travelsonic said:
Before we go any further, can we please get the fire in a crowded theater analogy RIGHT?

It's "shouting fire in a CROWDED theater when THERE IS NO fire" *

*Of course, seeing smoke pour out, you see no fire, but would have reason to believe one may be going on

Very very important distinction.

;)
Click to expand...

The overwhelming majority of people, except apparently, you, don't specify because it's assumed that most people don't go around screaming FIRE in empty theaters.
 
But it isn't just speech that can logically harm people such as a panic caused by shouting 'fire' in a crowded theater. (I don't recall anybody ever being prosecuted for doing this, however, whether or not there was a fire.) But libel and slander laws exist on the books in most states to prevent one person's speech from dishonestly and purposely damaging the reputation or livelihood of another person.

Unfortunately, in an era in which American values have been diluted and twisted by routine politics of personal destruction, it is also an extremely rare thing that libel or slander laws are enforced.
 
Hatuey said:
The overwhelming majority of people, except apparently, you, don't specify because it's assumed that most people don't go around screaming FIRE in empty theaters.
Click to expand...

Aye, but the "when there is no fire" is not only logically important, but actually part of the example itself [before the continual truncation]
 
zstep18 said:
Should there be any restrictions to the freedom of speech? Why or why not? If there should be restrictions, what restrictions should there be?
Click to expand...

In the exercise of your rights you may not infringe upon the rights of others.
 
No because if we put restrictions on freedom of speech then it ends to be free.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom