The Student Room Group

Should we limit free speech? (POLL)

Poll

Should we limit free speech?

Simple question, should we limit free speech?

My opinion is no, but there seems to be some groups who feel that if your view offends then it should be limited. However, this goes against the very principals of free speech and what they are. It simply isn't democratic to limit free speech. It sounds authoritarian!

Scroll to see replies

Original post by IAmNero
Simple question, should we limit free speech?

My opinion is no, but there seems to be some groups who feel that if your view offends then it should be limited. However, this goes against the very principals of free speech and what they are. It simply isn't democratic to limit free speech. It sounds authoritarian!


So, you don't think it should be illegal to incite someone to kill someone else? You think it is OK to shout "Fire!" in a crowded theatre concourse? You think it would be fine to tell the world that your teacher is a thief and an active paedophile?

Of course there should be limits. The only question is how intrusive those limits should be. But that isn't your question.
Reply 2
Original post by Good bloke
So, you don't think it should be illegal to incite someone to kill someone else? You think it is OK to shout "Fire!" in a crowded theatre concourse? You think it would be fine to tell the world that your teacher is a thief and an active paedophile?

Of course there should be limits. The only question is how intrusive those limits should be. But that isn't your question.


Perhaps I misphrased what I said, what I meant to say, was free speech within the bounds of reason, like making and offensive joke or insulting a culture, these shouldn't be classed as crimes. Inciting violence (looking at you Donald Tump protestors) is simply not reasonable, if you get me.

Besides, you aren't talking about free speech, you are talking about people making silly and dangerous remarks, these are different than and open dislike or hatred.
Original post by IAmNero
Perhaps I misphrased what I said, what I meant to say, was free speech within the bounds of reason, like making and offensive joke or insulting a culture, these shouldn't be classed as crimes. Inciting violence (looking at you Donald Tump protestors) is simply not reasonable, if you get me.

Besides, you aren't talking about free speech, you are talking about people making silly and dangerous remarks, these are different than and open dislike or hatred.


No.

You have clearly not thought through what you have asked before asking it. You asked about free speech - with no rider attached.

There are several potential reasons to limit free speech, such as (a) safety (the most important, obviously), (b) defamation, (c) incitement to serious crime, (d) incitement to hatred, (e) limiting discussion, (f) giving offence.

The first four of these seem reasonable limits to me. The fifth is not.

Next time you ask a question, think about it properly first.
Reply 4
Original post by Good bloke
No.

You have clearly not thought through what you have asked before asking it. You asked about free speech - with no rider attached.

There are several potential reasons to limit free speech, such as (a) safety (the most important, obviously), (b) defamation, (c) incitement to serious crime, (d) incitement to hatred, (e) limiting discussion, (f) giving offence.

The first four of these seem reasonable limits to me. The fifth is not.

Next time you ask a question, think about it properly first.


You clearly don't know the basic principles of free speech and democracy. But I won't waste my time on you.
Not unless it directly incites/expresses an intention to commit violence, no. The more you limit free speech, the more you risk running down the slippery slope to becoming an authoritarian dictatorship.
Reply 6
Definitely not imo.
In fact I feel we do not have enough freedom.
Original post by Good bloke
No.

You have clearly not thought through what you have asked before asking it. You asked about free speech - with no rider attached.

There are several potential reasons to limit free speech, such as (a) safety (the most important, obviously), (b) defamation, (c) incitement to serious crime, (d) incitement to hatred, (e) limiting discussion, (f) giving offence.

The first four of these seem reasonable limits to me. The fifth is not.

Next time you ask a question, think about it properly first.


Oi, leave it out. This guy's talking about free speech, not whatever you're on about. Stop thinking you're big man, smart and that, 'cos you're not. You're talking about something purely irrelevant. Shouting fire or whatever else you're talking about isn't a matter of free speech, it's a matter of breaking social rules.

EDIT: Before you reply I will clarify by adding the definition of freedom of speech: (Wikipedia) "Freedom of speech is the right to communicate one's opinions and ideas without fear of government retaliation or censorship" Now tell me how your fire scenario, or any other you have suggested, fits this, please.
(edited 7 years ago)
No.
There are already laws to limit hate speech etc.
If you aren't upsetting somebody or being outspoken or controversial with your words you don't need free speech.
There are countless people online that think your right to free speech should end where their feelings begin. We seem to have a generation coming out of uni that has a fit of the vapours at the very notion of an alternative point of view that they may find upsetting.
It's a shame really.
I would rather have my throat cut than constrained into what to say and what not to say. When a society that will limit free speech will be established in all its horror, I will be thankful that my grandfather taught me how to survive in the wilderness, for I would relegate to what my ancestors were about a millennia ago.

The convention already is to prohibit speech that incites violence or hatred towards a certain group, although the extent to which this axiom has been stretched is bewildering, if not worrying. Taking offence should never, and I mean never, become another limit in this convention. I don't like what some people say sometimes, maybe I take offence in some instances, but I am mentally ripe enough to just take that personally and not want to make it into law that whatever offends me is illegal.
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by Cprescott99
Shouting fire or whatever else you're talking about isn't a matter of free speech, it's a matter of breaking social rules.


You could not be more wrong.
Original post by Cprescott99
Oi, leave it out. This guy's talking about free speech, not whatever you're on about. Stop thinking you're big man, smart and that, 'cos you're not. You're talking about something purely irrelevant. Shouting fire or whatever else you're talking about isn't a matter of free speech, it's a matter of breaking social rules.


It involves both matters. This discussion involves the extent to which social rules should take precedence over peoples' rights, including the right to free speech. In the case of shouting "Fire!" in a theatre, the social rule that people do not say or shout things that would put people in danger takes precedence over peoples' right to express themselves freely. The question is, in what other situations should free speech prevail, and in what situations should free speech be curtailed to ensure peoples' safety?
(edited 7 years ago)
Things like libel, false advertisement, perjury, making credible threats, and so on, would be reasonable limits on free speech.

However, 'hate speech' and causing offense are too subjective as standards and can be easily abused in order to limit expression and to silence unwanted opinions. To merely 'offend' someone should not be a crime. Would you rather live in a world where people learn to deal with their issues maturely and independently, or one where people run to the authorities like petulent children whenever they hear something they find provocative?

What does offense even do, anyways? 'Someone drew a mean picture of the prophet!' Well, so what? Was he hurt?
Like with other rights, they should only ever be limited where you are attempting to restrict or damage the rights of another. That restriction should last as short amount of time as possible and each case measured on its own.


A couple of other things to note.
a) Just because you have the right to free speech, doesn't mean others have to listen to you.
b) You right to free speech doesn't stop people disagreeing with you or making reasonable criticisms.
Original post by mojojojo101
Like with other rights, they should only ever be limited where you are attempting to restrict or damage the rights of another. That restriction should last as short amount of time as possible and each case measured on its own.


A couple of other things to note.
a) Just because you have the right to free speech, doesn't mean others have to listen to you.
b) You right to free speech doesn't stop people disagreeing with you or making reasonable criticisms.


Hear, hear.
Define "limits". For example, consider the traditional "shouting fire in a crowded theatre" situation (or other cases in which your speech actually directly gets people killed). It seems fairly obvious that this should be illegal.
Original post by IAmNero
Simple question, should we limit free speech?

My opinion is no, but there seems to be some groups who feel that if your view offends then it should be limited. However, this goes against the very principals of free speech and what they are. It simply isn't democratic to limit free speech. It sounds authoritarian!


Absolutely never. Free speech is paramount in the marketplace of ideas.
Stupidly phrased question ofc free speech should be limited the SC of the US has already decided many of the limits e.g. Defamation, false advertising, schools and other employers can limit speech to avoid disruptions in workplace, Child pornography, incitement to violence and saying fire in a crowded place.

So any rational person would have to vote to limit free speech. But that isn't what you wanted to know it was about offensive and hate speech. On that regard there should be no limit to speech as the right is to protect unpopular speech. My point is that the question was badly phrased and that one most examine freedom of speech before asserting that it is an absolute right as it isn't as has been determined by the courts in most countries.
Original post by Good bloke
No.

You have clearly not thought through what you have asked before asking it. You asked about free speech - with no rider attached.



Original post by RohanYnaik
Stupidly phrased question




Actually, its you that has not thought about what you are typing.

Free speech does not mean the right to speak. Meaning Free speech isnt the right to say anything at anytime for any reason.

Free speech is the right to express opinions.

In otherwords, shouting "fire" or talking in a library have nothing to do with free speech.
(edited 6 years ago)
Original post by Farm_Ecology
Actually, its you that has not thought about what you are typing.

Free speech does not mean the right to speak. Meaning Free speech isnt the right to say anything at anytime for any reason.

Free speech is the right to express opinions.

In otherwords, shouting "fire" or talking in a library have nothing to do with free speech.


This is the definition of free speech: the right to express any opinions without censorship or restraint.

Here is a wikipedia article on the US and free speech exemptions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exceptions

Anyway even taking your interpretation of what free speech means incitement to suicide, defamation, incitement to violence all these involve opinions and have been deemed exceptions to free speech. So the question is poorly phrased as there are valid exceptions to when your opinion should be censored.

Quick Reply

Latest