Turn on thread page Beta

Justifiable reasons for limiting Freedom Of Speech watch

Announcements
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    I'm not sure what people in other countries are taught about Freedom Of Speech but in the U.S. my entire 8th grade,( 13yr. old), of public school was devoted to learning about the U.S. Constitution and, while freedom of speech was learned about alongside the other first Amendment rights, it was elevated above the others. It was not granted to me by the Gov., but by God. A birthright that without, gave little meaning to my other rights. It was inviolate and no matter how offended I was by someones words I was suppose to rise above the offense and defend myself with speech that discredited what they were saying. I was NEVER to try and have ANY ONES speech banned. That doing so would only hurt me.

    I know everyone doesn't feel this way and would like to hear from people who truly feel there are legitimate reasons for limiting freedom of speech. I know that in time of war some restrictions have to be implemented for national security and there's the often used example of, " you can't yell fire in a crowded theater", but those aside, I would like to hear some examples.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Never, because it sets a dangerous precedent and views aren't challenged.

    It'd be a truly desperate situation for me to advocate that.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    You shouldn't be able to run into a crowded room and shout fire, causing a panic and a stampede, 'just because you have freedom of speech'.

    You shouldn't be able to incite others to violence, just because you have 'freedom of speech'.

    Slander laws come into it as well.



    But, granted by God? :rolleyes:
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    I believe in freedom of speech but I also believe in good manners - just because you've got the right to say something doesn't always necessarily mean that you should.
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by oldercon1953)
    I'm not sure what people in other countries are taught about Freedom Of Speech but in the U.S. my entire 8th grade,( 13yr. old), of public school was devoted to learning about the U.S. Constitution and, while freedom of speech was learned about alongside the other first Amendment rights, it was elevated above the others. It was not granted to me by the Gov., but by God. A birthright that without, gave little meaning to my other rights. It was inviolate and no matter how offended I was by someones words I was suppose to rise above the offense and defend myself with speech that discredited what they were saying. I was NEVER to try and have ANY ONES speech banned. That doing so would only hurt me.

    I know everyone doesn't feel this way and would like to hear from people who truly feel there are legitimate reasons for limiting freedom of speech. I know that in time of war some restrictions have to be implemented for national security and there's the often used example of, " you can't yell fire in a crowded theater", but those aside, I would like to hear some examples.
    It's not that you could restrict speech, but perhaps certain actions which could be done via speech. For example you shouldn't cause chaos in a crowded theatre as someone could get injured, and shouting fire causes chaos. In other contexts you can shout fire, so it's not like your "message" is being completely censored. I think you shouldn't set about limiting speech, but that limiting speech could be a consequence of other limitations necessary to protect people (Eg. Not being allowed to repeatedly harass someone, which can be done via speech).
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Darelz)
    It's not that you could restrict speech, but perhaps certain actions which could be done via speech. For example you shouldn't cause chaos in a crowded theatre as someone could get injured, and shouting fire causes chaos. In other contexts you can shout fire, so it's not like your "message" is being completely censored. I think you shouldn't set about limiting speech, but that limiting speech could be a consequence of other limitations necessary to protect people (Eg. Not being allowed to repeatedly harass someone, which can be done via speech).
    I did use the example of not being free to yell fire in a theater as an example of a legitimate restriction. The example you have used, repeatedly harassing someone, could fit the definition of verbal assault and would not be protected speech. " Your freedoms end where the other guys begin ", is a guideline that usually works.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tempest II)
    I believe in freedom of speech but I also believe in good manners - just because you've got the right to say something doesn't always necessarily mean that you should.
    ""I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it." - Evelyn Beatrice Hall"
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by oldercon1953)
    It was not granted to me by the Gov., but by God.
    Any right given to you by a mythical fairy tale character is, by necessity, fictional.

    It never ceases to amaze me that a western country with a secular constitution like that of the USA should have so many people who assign so much importance to Christianity, which is no less a superstition than the tooth fairy, goblins and Santa Claus.

    On the subject of the OP, there are many obvious and reasonable exceptions to freedom of speech: incitement to crime, especially violence, slander and libel, public safety, witness statements in a court of law, child pornography, copyright.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    I think too many people use emotions as a means to limit speech. Social decorum is not a limitation of the ability to say something. Just because you don't say something does not mean we should not be allowed to say it.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Good bloke)
    Any right given to you by a mythical fairy tale character is, by necessity, fictional.

    It never ceases to amaze me that a western country with a secular constitution like that of the USA should have so many people who assign so much importance to Christianity, which is no less a superstition than the tooth fairy, goblins and Santa Claus.

    On the subject of the OP, there are many obvious and reasonable exceptions to freedom of speech: incitement to crime, especially violence, slander and libel, public safety, witness statements in a court of law, child pornography, copyright.
    What a deep understanding you have of God.

    So your saying Freedom Of Speech doesn't exist apart from that portion given to us by Gov? Or that it doesn't really exist at all and is just some ethereal construct we delude ourselves with? You do say that by necessity it is fictitious.

    Your examples of speech that can reasonably be limited are a bit broad but if we define breaking any law as a crime, what if it's an unjust law? If I feel the greater good is served by ignoring or outright breaking the law, shouldn't I be free to publicly announce my opinion and allow others to decide for themselves the legitimacy of the law and whether they should obey it or not?

    I'm not sure what you mean when you say Christianity is a superstition? Whether you believe God is real or not, to say Christianity is a superstition is to ignore what it says about how we should treat our fellow man. Without these beliefs the Constitution, as it is, would not have been written.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by oldercon1953)
    What a deep understanding you have of God. Mine is as deep as anyone's can be of a malevolent, vindictive and wholly fictitious deity.

    So your saying Freedom Of Speech doesn't exist apart from that portion given to us by Gov? Or that it doesn't really exist at all and is just some ethereal construct we delude ourselves with? You do say that by necessity it is fictitious. No, I say your god is fictitious.

    Your examples of speech that can reasonably be limited are a bit broad but if we define breaking any law as a crime, what if it's an unjust law? If I feel the greater good is served by ignoring or outright breaking the law, shouldn't I be free to publicly announce my opinion and allow others to decide for themselves the legitimacy of the law and whether they should obey it or not? Denounce away. Criticism of the law is a perfect use of freedom of speech.

    I'm not sure what you mean when you say Christianity is a superstition? Whether you believe God is real or not, to say Christianity is a superstition is to ignore what it says about how we should treat our fellow man. Without these beliefs the Constitution, as it is, would not have been written. All religions are superstitions: they are irrational beliefs. It is a matter of definition.
    See above. My comments are in bold.

    Why and how the US constitution came to be written is largely irrelevant. Those same drafters were also quite happy to enslave people and to oppress the native Americans, so any claim to moral high ground in its words would ring somewhat hollow.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Good bloke)
    See above. My comments are in bold.

    Why and how the US constitution came to be written is largely irrelevant. Those same drafters were also quite happy to enslave people and to oppress the native Americans, so any claim to moral high ground in its words would ring somewhat hollow.
    Even if religions are superstitions, aren't there effect on people real? Religion has had an obvious effect on you.

    Tbh, I was hoping for more serious comments.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by oldercon1953)
    X
    I think GoodBloke's point (though I don't presume to speak for them) is that 'natural law' is not a good foundation for human rights and that there are better justifications available.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Comus)
    I think GoodBloke's point (though I don't presume to speak for them) is that 'natural law' is not a good foundation for human rights and that there are better justifications available.
    Indeed it is. Rights and privileges are given by societies, not by entirely fictional deities.
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    It does my nut in when people say 'what about freedom of speech' as if it is a universal right in the UK - it is NOT! It does have limitations, look up the law.

    Personally I think it should only be limited when it can cause harm to others (incitement to violence or hatred etc). Obviously this is very grey and can usually only be dealt with case-by-case, which makes it hard to define and leads to people like I'm describing above getting angry when it is limited or challenged. But you cannot have unlimited free speech, in my [freely expressed hehe] opinion

    PS Just because you are allowed to say something doesn't mean you should - personal restraint and a sense of respect for others is nice.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Comus)
    I think GoodBloke's point (though I don't presume to speak for them) is that 'natural law' is not a good foundation for human rights and that there are better justifications available.
    At the risk of sounding like I just want to argue; natural law is not only a good foundation or even the best foundation but is the ONLY foundation for claiming that immutable human rights even exist. Natural Law dictates that you ALREADY possess these rights; you CAN't petition the Gov. for them because the Gov. CAN'T give you something you already possess. They are as necessary an ingredient to your humanity as your flesh and blood are. Anything so deeply possessed will not be easily oppressed. If we honestly see what our unchecked humanity is capable of we may voluntarily put limits on the free exercise of some of them but only to the extent that the group can work peacefully together.
    If you think that there is no spiritual content to man then this will sound like crap. If you do allow for the spiritual it makes perfect sense.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Good bloke)
    Indeed it is. Rights and privileges are given by societies, not by entirely fictional deities.
    Rights given by society can be taken away; mine can't; they can only be oppressed.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    A case today in Canada has resulted in a comedian ordered to pay 35k for a joke, in Canada the right to not be offended exist.

    It was heard in a court where they have openly said truth is no defence.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Even in America you can't go around saying anything you like under the First Amendment - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unit...ech_exceptions

    If 13-year old kids are being taught they have a god-given birthright to go round spouting any old nonsense it's no wonder your country has ended up with someone like Trump where he is.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Duncan2012)
    Even in America you can't go around saying anything you like under the First Amendment - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unit...ech_exceptions

    If 13-year old kids are being taught they have a god-given birthright to go round spouting any old nonsense it's no wonder your country has ended up with someone like Trump where he is.
    I make it a point to tell every 13 yr. old kid I see that he has a God given right to spout anything they want and if offending someone is the only way to say it then that's what they have to do.


    I'm glad you mentioned Donald Trump.. I just heard his amazing speech. I've grown so accustom to hearing only watered down American values out of our politicians I forgot what it was like to hear a real American give a speech. Donald Trump will be elected.
 
 
 
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.