Rave this question if you ACTUALLY support FREEDOM OF SPEECH.

Agree

The answer I just selected says it all. Freedom of speech means that I have to listen to different people's opinions and accept that that's what they believe.It's called having an open mind.

Thank you.

Rave rave rave. I believe in free speech. I don't believe in freedom to slander or libel like Obama.

How did he slander or libel?

Sure do and I support my freedom to tell them off if I dont like what they say also.

Thank you.

100% doesn't mean I have to like their opinion though.

Thank you.

I believe in free speech for every citizen. That said, I don't believe that lying falls within free speech. Lying can be very harmful, it isn't honest, and it should not be considered as "free speech".

Lying may not be protected free speech, indeed. If, for instance, it's defamation, lying can get you sued.

But generally we don't punish lying.

Who does the judging is another problem. Too many in power have prejudices and agendas.

Agreed 100%! Freedom of Speech is not freedom to slander and libel.

But when is the line drawn? At what level is the line drawn? Suitable repercussions for overstepping the line? Does it include how loudly the speech is, that is, can someone yell in someone else's face and consider it free speech? What are the allowable age differences between speaker and speakee...? That is, is it acceptable for a twenty year old to call an eleven year old any number of hurtful things? Is it okay for parents to berate and belittle their children publicly? It's hard to say.

I'm with you on this. When speech causes harm to others it perhaps shouldn't be "banned", but punished in some way.

Most municipalities draw such lines with time, place and manner restrictions...for instance, forbidding speaking with a megaphone in residential areas.

And I'll fight to keep it.

Thank you.

YW. :-)

Though, people seem to be misinformed on what free speech really is. If someone is using there "free speech" to harass someone, than it's not free speech. Hate speech is not free speech, it's just ignorance.
Now, i have a question.
Is threatening someone's life free speech?

For me it isn't. But you cannot stop someone from threatening or harassing others. They can, however, be held accountable, or should be, in my view.

At some point, though, you can stop someone from harassing another. There are laws to protect people...

Hate speech is, however, free speech in the U.S.

Criminalizing it gives too much power to the government.

As for threatening someone's life...that depends. Usually, yes it is. People threaten, casually, to kill each other all the time out of anger.

there are other criminalised laws that some would argue interferes with their rights but are implemented for the greater good. Take 1)litter laws and 2)water restriction by-laws during droughts...I use these examples because there is a definite gradation of health and social welfare issues that are involved as I compare them with the right to free speech. In a drought, fines can be steep for water waste. The impact of waste is obvious and therefore needs no further discussion (I hope). As for littering: eventually the buildup of litter will pose environmental and other health hazards. When comparing littering with water waste during a drought, it's easy to see that the immediate impact is less severe, if for example someone is merely throwing a Coke can out the window on the highway. But unchecked, it will eventually cause problems. Lastly, comparing the effect of hate speech...much less severe, but there should still at least be the consideration for the acceptance that unchecked, it can get out of hand and measures should be taken to lessen the possible negative impact of unchecked hate speech. Why not just take this into consideration when deciding that all speech, regardless of content, regardless of possible negative impact is completely okay?

There actually ARE measures taken into account to lessen the negative impact of hate speech. It can't incite violence (which is a narrow exception). It can't be defamatory. It can't be obscene. It's subject to reasonable time, place and manner restrictions.

The problem is criminalizing speech based on content that you disagree with...that's what hate speech laws do. Because once you give that power to the government, you have to worry about whether or not the government might determine that your opinion, because it's unpopular, might later be considered hate speech.

Limit someone speech then you lose yours !!!! Then right to carry a gun and freedom of religion then the right to gather in peace . When will it end Look at China !!!!!

Think there's a reason why it's the FIRST Amendment? And the 2nd backs it up.

We need to have free speech, to protect the exchange of ideas, especially ideas of political importance. But there do need to be limits on what is protected. There is no valid reason to protect yelling "fire" in a crowded theater, because that would create a threat to safety without furthering any political interest. And I would submit that speech, videos, or anything else designed to insult any particular religion, or inspire violence by members of a religion, falls into the same category as yelling "fire" in a theater. People are serious about their religions, as is understandable. If you want to criticize a religion, that is OK too. But there is no reason to protect religious hate speech, such as the video that has led to protests and riots in the Middle East

Hate speech is still free speech, is it not?

I would say no. It has no legitimate purpose.

So any speech that has no legitimate purpose should not be "free speech"? And before this goes further, I want to know who is in charge of deciding what constitutes "hate speech". The term "hate speech" goes further in destroying the First Amendment than does anything devised to remove that Amendment. It is a means of CONTROLLING speech and that's what dictators, communists, and other ne'er-do-wells do.

But does it need to have a purpose to be protected?

But... I also reserve the freedom to not have to listen to someone's free speech if they're being purposely and willfully ignorant.

Thank you.

I support the right for others to speak but I reserve my right to not listen. So while I will defend Larry Flynt's right to publisher Hustler, I will not buy it. Nor will I watch TV shows which I consider inappropriate.

Thank you.

than goodness no no answers

not only do I have hear things I might not like but also accept things I might not like or agree with. All part of freedom ...

Thank you.

Freedom of speech also comes with social and moral responsibility and accountability. In some rare cases it can be curtailed but normally "sticks and stoned may break my bones but words can never hurt me". Of course there are cry babies the have very thin skin and suffer mental anguish at any verbiage that disagrees with their opinion.