What are the limits of free speech?
What do you believe should be the limits of free speech, or do you believe it should be a free-for-all with absolutely no limits?
Free speech but restricted if you incite murder?
Free speech but restricted if you insult religious beliefs?
Free speech but restricted if it's homophobic, racist, sexist, etc.?
Free speech but restricted if you incite murder?
Free speech but restricted if you insult religious beliefs?
Free speech but restricted if it's homophobic, racist, sexist, etc.?
Scroll to see replies
I think the only instance free speech should be limited is where it can be demonstrated it interferes with public safety, or operates to incite violence.
Beyond that? Say what you like.
Beyond that? Say what you like.
Original post by TheCitizenAct
I think the only instance free speech should be limited is where it can be demonstrated it interferes with public safety, or operates to incite violence.
Beyond that? Say what you like.
Beyond that? Say what you like.
What do you mean by 'operates'?
I believe free-speech should not be used to deliberately offend others.
Original post by quentinhamilton
I believe free-speech should not be used to deliberately offend others.
'I hate feminism.'
Suddenly, 10,000 tweeters are offended.
Should I be locked up?
1) Tim Stanley, a journalist, was recently banned from debating at The University of Oxford because he, I quote, 'lacks a uterus.' Feminists were offended he showed the temerity to stand up and debate on abortion.
2) Douglas Carswell was recently banned from the UEA for daring to offer an opposing view point on immigration. His views were deemed offensive, he was banned from debating.
3) The University of Dundee recently banned the society for the protection of unborn children. Reason cited? Offence.
4) Student unions all over The UK have banned blurred lines and The Sun newspaper. Reason cited? Misogyny and offence.
5) The National Union of students recently tried to ban white homosexual men from co-opting black female culture. They also prohibited clapping at the event because it 'promotes anxiety.'
6) The University of Manchester recently banned Milo Yiannopolous from debating on the topic of, wait for it, censorship. Apparently he could 'compromise the safety of students.'
I could be here all day. Recurring theme? Feelings and feminism. Apparently students are now so frail, so infantilised, so molly coddled, they can't be burdened with hearing viewpoints which challenge their deeply ingrained beliefs.
Who decides on what's offensive? Typically those who are offended. Your rights end where someone else's feelings begin.
Incitement to violence, other than that, no.
Citizens post above is both shocking and rather worrying.
Citizens post above is both shocking and rather worrying.
"Offense" should not be a criteria for the limitation of free speech. Why? It's simply too subjective, and it severely limits the freedom to criticize beliefs and ideas (which people may happen hold dear). Rather than coddling and pandering to the 'offended', we should be treating people like grown adults with rights and freedoms.
Original post by Lady Comstock
What do you believe should be the limits of free speech, or do you believe it should be a free-for-all with absolutely no limits?
Free speech but restricted if you incite murder?
Free speech but restricted if you insult religious beliefs?
Free speech but restricted if it's homophobic, racist, sexist, etc.?
Free speech but restricted if you incite murder?
Free speech but restricted if you insult religious beliefs?
Free speech but restricted if it's homophobic, racist, sexist, etc.?
Our right to free speech should be protected unless it is being used to deliberately cause offence to an individual or group, threatening or encouraging violence against an individual or group, or is carrying a message that suggests the intention to endanger the lives of other people.
I think that the First Amendment nailed it 
Any form of communication can be expressed with compassion and respect. People's inability to show such compassion is the reason for much of the chaos and commotion.
If there's restriction on "free speech", how is it then free speech?
"I disprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your write to say it"-Voltaire
That quote accurately reflects my mindset: Your opinion can be totally offensive, un-popular, even cruel in a majority's view but it is your right to say it. Also, how can you determine what is right and what is wrong? By the current view point of the society? You must be God to judge the morality of an opinion.
"I disprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your write to say it"-Voltaire
That quote accurately reflects my mindset: Your opinion can be totally offensive, un-popular, even cruel in a majority's view but it is your right to say it. Also, how can you determine what is right and what is wrong? By the current view point of the society? You must be God to judge the morality of an opinion.
Libel and perhaps incitement to violence .... that's it. It doesn't matter how offensive something is, people have the right to freely express themselves. You should be free to say absolutely anything (bar the exceptions I listed) firstly without intervention from the state and secondly without intervention from vigilantes who try and prevent you from being heard.
Original post by mackemforever
Our right to free speech should be protected unless it is being used to deliberately cause offence to an individual or group, threatening or encouraging violence against an individual or group, or is carrying a message that suggests the intention to endanger the lives of other people.
Absolutely wrong, free speech should be free to be as absolutely offensive as it likes.
Original post by limetang
Absolutely wrong, free speech should be free to be as absolutely offensive as it likes.
So if somebody was walking around the middle of London yelling "**** all you ****ing *******, you all need be sent back to ****ing africa you black *****" then that would be perfectly fine in your opinion?
Original post by mackemforever
So if somebody was walking around the middle of London yelling "**** all you ****ing *******, you all need be sent back to ****ing africa you black *****" then that would be perfectly fine in your opinion?
It could have been 200 years ago, where being racist towards black people was not only common, but accepted. That's the thing though, are you going to base what is a right and a wrong opinion based on common moral standards in current society?
Original post by mackemforever
So if somebody was walking around the middle of London yelling "**** all you ****ing *******, you all need be sent back to ****ing africa you black *****" then that would be perfectly fine in your opinion?
Well, you could argue inciting racial hatred however, objectively, what has he done other than shame himself?
What are you so afraid of? Someone's going to change their perspective on racism and suddenly decide to join in? That it's going to have an impact on the viewpoint held by the vast, vast majority of people? i.e. racism, of all varieties, is stupid?
If someone holds these views, I'd rather they express them. Then I can target them, argue with them, and win. I'd rather know who the racists are, than not. The racist won't be convinced, but everyone else will be.
You can't hope to challenge viewpoints unless you give people the option of voicing them. Censoring them just feeds resentment and division.
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by Eigo-Jin
It could have been 200 years ago, where being racist towards black people was not only common, but accepted. That's the thing though, are you going to base what is a right and a wrong opinion based on common moral standards in current society?
Yes, of course what is accepted as right should be based on the moral standards of today.
If it wasn't done that way then we'd all still be thinking that slavery was perfectly fine, or making blacks attend different schools, and not be allowed into any shops that are owned by whites, and having to travel on different buses, and so on.
Original post by mackemforever
So if somebody was walking around the middle of London yelling "**** all you ****ing *******, you all need be sent back to ****ing africa you black *****" then that would be perfectly fine in your opinion?
It wouldn't be fine but it should be legal.
Quick Reply
Latest
Trending
Last reply 2 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 3 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 3 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 2 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 3 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 3 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
