Turn on thread page Beta
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    How far do you think freedom of speech should apply? At what point should freedom of speech be limited? If something is openly hateful and offensive, should we restrict a person's right to say it? Most would expect the law to protect them from physical attack so why not verbal attack?

    I haven't made my own mind up on this one, so I thought I'd see what opinions people on here have.
    Offline

    16
    Freedom of speech should be restricted if it is directly offensive. Anyone can talk about anything in a way that dosen't involve cuss words and can be discussed in a civilised manner.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    Peopel should be allowed to say whatever they want. However, I agree wholeheartedly with the strong-language watershed.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    You should have complete freedom of speech in general. We should restrict peoples freedom of speech only if its really hurting someone else, like if someone wanted to stand outside my house shouting at me 24/7, they should be limited to only doing it 10 hours a day or so, so I can still sleep
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I think freedom of speech should not be used as an excuse to directly instigate violence or harm...I mean, I don't expect someone standing at the foot of an axe wielding mob screaming 'in my opinion, all westerners must die' to get away with it.
    Other than that extreme I guess people are free to say what they want,but they should definitely not expect to say it unopposed( eg racists, fascists, axe murderers..) What I mean is people shouldn't defend themselves from public outcry against some crap which they have said by claiming their right to free speech, because free speech also covers the people who think their statements should be banned or retracted.
    My argument is starting to sound a bit circular but thats what you get if you let everyone say what they want.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Some one somewhere will be offended by something,let them be, as long as you are not threatening someone (which is illegal) or inciting hatred against a group then meh, let them talk.

    If i walk up to someone and say hey your mums a ****, they may be offended but so? they're in no physical danger or harm and do not fear harm so why should it be banned?
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    So long as you do not violate the rights of others.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    There should be some restrictions, common sense ones, we just take the pi** with it and let anybody say/do what they want, which is not the correct way forward.

    Everything should be taken with a pinch of common sense, this country has gone downhill because of all of this political correctness bs
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rubgish)
    You should have complete freedom of speech in general. We should restrict peoples freedom of speech only if its really hurting someone else, like if someone wanted to stand outside my house shouting at me 24/7, they should be limited to only doing it 10 hours a day or so, so I can still sleep
    This is such a cute post!

    OP, the point of free speech is that it's not regulated. Once it becomes regulated, there are even more problems to overcome. I personally dislike the foul language and as another poster said, I agree with the watershed, but if you were to try to limit everything that may be offensive to someone else, then there'd be no such thing as free speech.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Well there are certain situations in which free speech should not apply - for example, in education, advertisng, bullying, libel, inciting hatred, and other instances where saying something will actually cause real-life problems for other people.

    But I agree with free speech to the extent that someone should be allowed to express their opinions. I don't agree with expression for the purpose that "if people listen to him too much, they might start agreeing with him" - which is why I was against the idea that Nick Griffin and David Irving should be banned from speaking at the Oxford Union.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    Freedom of speech should be held in its upmost till point of violent intent e.g. Someone holds a gun to a childs head, and someone else shouts 'shoot'.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I think free speech in public places/forums should be an absolute. For example I think its ok to stand in the street and spout your views, regardless of how 'racist', 'homophobic' or 'offensive' they are. But you can't (for example) send threatening leaflets to people or break into their house & write on the walls. 'Multiculturalism' seems to mean people are willing to take offence at the slightest thing, piss off. This is something that really irks me. Who gives a **** who's offended? Free speech is essential in a democracy, everyone should be allowed to air their views. How can we claim to have a democracy if we are shutting people up just because we don't like what they have to say? I agree with Pat Condell when he said 'people have been conditioned by the lie of multiculturalism to believe that what they should think is more important than what they do think'. If you don't like free speech, would you prefer to live in Saudi Arabia or Burma, for example?
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    Freedom of speech = youtube.
 
 
 
Poll
Do you think parents should charge rent?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.