Are there limitations on free speech?

Watch
Den987
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 2 years ago
#1
Do you think that free speech in civilised society is limited or not?

If so/not, why do you think that?
0
reply
jamesbarry17
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#2
Report 2 years ago
#2
Yes, absolutely, but I'm not sure what the philosophical part of this discussion would be. Taking people off social media for holding certain views is a huge issue, as is defining "hate speech" in law.
3
reply
username2950448
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#3
Report 2 years ago
#3
You mean should there be limitations on free speech.
0
reply
Bluejewel01
Badges: 8
Rep:
?
#4
Report 2 years ago
#4
I do think there is free speech in civilised societies today more than ever before
2
reply
GrowFree
Badges: 8
Rep:
?
#5
Report 2 years ago
#5
The basic idea to answer your important question is that any freedom limits in some way any other freedom, so we can only manage our freedoms trying to find the best social balances.

It would be nice to dream total freedom in speech, but we can reflect and think that when, for example, somebody insults people, this person is actually limiting people’s freedom, because he is trying to create an unfavourable psychological situation to other people, trying to discourage other people from acting in their full freedom.
3
reply
DarthRoar
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#6
Report 2 years ago
#6
Are there limits? Evidently yes.

Should there be limits? That's a better question. There are some circumstances where expression should be limited (i.e slander/libel, incitement). However, these limits should be extremely limited in scope and very carefully defined. These nebulous laws on 'hate' are utterly ridiculous and infringe upon our rights.
1
reply
londonmyst
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#7
Report 2 years ago
#7
Free speech within the law has to contain limitations.
To protect against slander/defamation, safeguard public order & state secrets, protect against harassment and avoid criminals causing chaos with violent solicitations.
Most people don't realize that broadcasting, electronic messaging, telephone calls, the post and any form of publishing is covered under separate laws.

The problem isn't free speech or legitimate prevention of criminal conduct.
More a prevalent social attitude amongst some activist/student groups demanding meeting premises with ideological "safe spaces" where their desire for very narrow parameters of discussion/opinion are conflated with legal requirements.
This paves the way for a sort of collective hysteria to automatically ensue when the echo chamber gets a hint of an opinion contrary to their own.
Or a whiff of an event that will include the presence of a law abiding ideological opponent planning to mock or openly rally against them/their safe spaces.
1
reply
username4811012
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#8
Report 2 years ago
#8
IMO in a perfect world free speech would be limitless but with that comes limitless scrutiny. People can say what they want without being legally restricted but they should be aware of the consequences of their words. People have just as much a right to get offended, to criticise or to avoid associating with someone if they don't like what they have to say. Preventing ideas from being discussed actually enables their perpetuation and frequently causes issues such as pluralistic ignorance.
0
reply
username4750946
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#9
Report 2 years ago
#9
I think that it would be limited to the part where the statement being made has no common sense behind it.
1
reply
Ragman75
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#10
Report 1 year ago
#10



in terms of expressing political opinions no there aren't, in terms of things you cannot say like calls to action or liable; yes.
1
reply
Bluerainy
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#11
Report 1 year ago
#11
I don't know
0
reply
The Mogg
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#12
Report 1 year ago
#12
Freedom of Speech is a crucial part of having a functioning society, the intolerant radical left who seek to censor any opinion that doesn't conform to theirs is exactly the opposite of what is needed. However, there should obviously be limits, people obviously shouldn't be able to go around blabbing obscenities and putting it under Freedom of Speech.
1
reply
SHallowvale
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#13
Report 1 year ago
#13
(Original post by DarthRoar)
These nebulous laws on 'hate' are utterly ridiculous and infringe upon our rights.
Such as?
0
reply
lhabgabdgbfa
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#14
Report 1 year ago
#14
other than than being slanderous or libal, I think free speech should be acceptable in any case. To answer you're question, free speech has lots of limitaions
1
reply
Retired_Messiah
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#15
Report 1 year ago
#15
Yes cause I can't roll my Rs.
0
reply
techno9
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#16
Report 1 year ago
#16
Yes.
Anything that slanders other people is illegal and risks being sued.
Conspiracy to commit a crime, telling other people to break the law or threatening violence risks arrest.
1
reply
username3819898
Badges: 5
Rep:
?
#17
Report 1 year ago
#17
(Original post by Den987)
Do you think that free speech in civilised society is limited or not?

If so/not, why do you think that?
Are there any limitations on free speech currently in society? Absolutely.

Should there be? Hell no. Everyone’s become so damn sensitive that jokes can get people fired now. Fair enough, some things can be below the belt and apologies are due where they’re due. But you cannot start policing people’s language. The ****ing irony of modern day liberals... their idiocy is what’s gonna lead to an Orwellian state.
0
reply
Leviathanzzz
Badges: 9
Rep:
?
#18
Report 1 year ago
#18
I don't believe free speech shouldn't be limited, I'm an absolutist in the regard. That being said, a lot of people's concept of free speech, is actually of free reign. You can say whatever you like, but if someone takes offense or refuses to host you or your ideas, you have to accept that as a faucet of free speech. You can't say something inflammatory or offensive and then call it censorship -as a lot of speakers and pundits tend to- when private individuals or groups refuse to condone it or give you a platform to spread it, there can and aught to be repercussions in a society with absolute free speech.

That being said, these repercussions aught to be by individuals or a society, but not by the state. That being said, an Orwellian state isn't going to sprout from some 'liberals' being excessive in their response to what they deem as offensive.
0
reply
Napp
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#19
Report 1 year ago
#19
Naturally, there will always be constraints on it for the simple reason that people cannot be trusted with unlimited free speech. As demonstrated quite regularly by ass holes on the street abusing people for race/religion/sex/etc.
0
reply
Ragman75
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#20
Report 1 year ago
#20
(Original post by Napp)
Naturally, there will always be constraints on it for the simple reason that people cannot be trusted with unlimited free speech. As demonstrated quite regularly by ass holes on the street abusing people for race/religion/sex/etc.
That's not a logical argument, as ideas what will be classed as abuse are wholly dependent on bias. Also if your talking about verbal harassment or general verbally abusive behavior (ie someone shouting at another on the street) the ideas inside the words(the actual speech) are meaningless. In the case of harassment the unacceptability is the frequency of the what ever is being said(could even just be a noise) to a private citizen in a context outside of something like the public square. When it comes to general verbal abuse again the words are meaningless its the intent to upset and the emotion behind the words. There are no logical reasons to limit expression of ideas into the public square unless you believe in some sort of autocratic class of people/person should hold dominion over the general population.
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

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.

Personalise

Poll: What factors affect your mental health most right now? Post-lockdown edition

Anxiousness about restrictions easing (48)
5.99%
Uncertainty around my education (92)
11.49%
Uncertainty around my future career prospects (82)
10.24%
Lack of purpose or motivation (102)
12.73%
Lack of support system (eg. teachers, counsellors, delays in care) (40)
4.99%
Impact lockdown had on physical health (45)
5.62%
Social worries (incl. loneliness/making friends) (87)
10.86%
Financial worries (53)
6.62%
Concern about myself or my loves ones getting/having been ill (37)
4.62%
Exposure to negative news/social media (51)
6.37%
Difficulty accessing real life entertainment (25)
3.12%
Lack of confidence in making big life decisions (76)
9.49%
Worry about missed opportunities during the pandemic (63)
7.87%

Watched Threads

View All