Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Should we limit free speech? (POLL) Watch

  • View Poll Results: Should we limit free speech?
    Yes
    4
    17.39%
    No
    19
    82.61%
    Not Sure
    0
    0%

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    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!
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    • Community Assistant
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    Political Ambassador
    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.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Definitely not imo.
    In fact I feel we do not have enough freedom.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    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.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    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.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    No way. If people have a problem with what I say they can go **** themselves. Whether some overly sensitive idiot with a chronic inferiority complex gets offended or not is none of my concern.

    I make a point of being mercilessly blunt because it's better to know where you stand than believe a lie. I'm also blunt by nature. If free speech were abolished or restricted I'd never get out of jail for just being me.

    Furthermore, the people who are attacking our freedom are the hypocrites who don't understand that not everyone agrees with them. For example, I make no secret of the fact that I absolutely loathe Islam, creationism, feminism, communism and incompetence in general. People are always trying to silence me because my opinions offend them. What they don't realise is that by their own logic the Quran, creationism, feminism, communism and stupidity should all be banned because it offends me. But apparently, when I offend people it's outside the bounds of free speech and when they offend me it's justified.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (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?
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    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?
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    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.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    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.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Would you like to hibernate through the winter months?
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • 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

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