Should there be restrictions to freedom of speech ?
Obviously , freedom of speech can be very dangerous . I find that every time somebody shouts something homophobic, racist or just offensive, their defense is usually "free speech ". Without total freedom of speech, things such as the kkk would not be able to exist and racist abuse would be fully disallowed.
Speech is an act and acts which cause not needed and substantial harm should be illegal! I am not talking about causing offense or promoting an unpopular and even morally corrupt point of view. But it is not legal to start riots or to verbally harass and nor should it be. Freedom of speech exists to promote the liberty of individuals, not to allow us to cause harm to one another.
Having the right to free speech does not meaning being irresponsible and ignorant. I mean our freedom ends where the others starts, you should be free to give your opinion but with coherence and respect, to also be conscious of the sensitivity of others. To use our freedom we must respect the other's freedom as well.
There is no excuse for inciting hatred. There is no excuse for inciting hatred and racism. Free speech cam be used as a way of pretending that it is OK. Religion should be allowed to be criticized, the same with everything but you cannot incite hatred into the world as that is not right.
Boundaries are needed sometimes. Well, to be honest, I think a line needs to be drawn around this point. It feels like some people will say and do anything to have people agree with them on an issue, and we simply shouldn't give these dishonest people ammunition by allowing them to lie and distort facts.
Freedom of speech should be totally free. I feel that I should have the right to say and think what I want when I want to. I could say the most racist thing, but it's not until I act on it or try to force onto other people that it should be illegal. As long as I'm not trying to force people to think like me, forcing my thoughts on them, I shouldn't have to censor myself. Taking away my freedom of speech regarding racist, or unacceptable comments, might only be the beginning, who knows? Today it's this, tomorrow it's my right to say something bad about the government, or anything they deem unacceptable. Freedom of speech is not a right its a necessity.
ReplyDeleteYou don't achieve anything from stating a hateful opinion. It does not achieve anything at all, all it does is hurt people and then causes them to act in response to the offence they feel. Limitation would stop this, and prevent any major response of happening. I understand where you're coming from, but everyone should know their limits.
DeleteEveryone should know their limits. The important part though is that its their limits, not limits imposed on them by anyone else. A hateful opinion might only achieve pain, but it's still whoevers opinion. If we have nothing else in the world the one thing any man should be entitled to is his opinion. Freedom of speech is something that every man has, no matter how rich or poor he is. Freedom of speech equalizes everyone.
DeleteSome freedom of speech should be limited when it comes to hate speech. The reason for this is hate speech should not be protected and confused for "free speech". Hate speech could cause violent reactions which would be no for society. Hate speech could very well be considered violation the civil rights as other so the best policy is to ban hate speech.
DeleteFreedom of speech counts for everything. We can't have "Freedom of speech" if it only allows us to say partially what's on our minds. Freedom of speech is all or nothing, we can't limit what we say and still call it "free speech". Freedom of speech needs to be everything, not just half of it.
DeleteOkay here's an example, what happen in Paris, " charlie. charlie". You're going to tell me that the magazine editor was not at fault? They ridiculed continuously the largest growing religion in the world (Islam). And I understand the gun men were radical, and it was a complete unproportionate response, but what i'm trying to say is that if after the threats, they would have stopped, they could of realized that they were offending others, this whole situation would be avoided.
DeleteThey could have stopped. That much is true, as long as it was on their terms, not anyone else's. Saying the magazine editor was at fault is victim blaming, its like if this girl didn't want to be raped, then why'd she dress like that? Or if this guy didn't want to be punched in the face, why'd he say that? I will not walk on egg shells around other people, doing things exactly to their liking, making sure that ever little thing I do doesn't offend anyone! No one should have to not be able to do something just because someone else's culture doesn't allow it! I will be free, and so should you!
DeleteThat's not what i'm trying to say though, they were warned many times before, it was made clear that if they did not stop something was bound to happen. And so let me ask you this, was proving a point that important? It was so important that they, went on and on, making fun of a religion . That insane extremist took three innocent lives away. 3 people were killed just to prove a point? What this looks like to me is ignorance and immaturity, a situation that could of been avoided, but no, they kept adding fuel to the fire.
DeleteProving their point was important. They obviously made the choice, they chose to put their lives on the line. Maybe they thought a life where they had to censor themselves for others wasn't really living, living was the ability to be free, completely free. It may not seem like it was important enough to die for to you, but to them, it was the most important thing in the world. People will die for free speech.
DeleteThere are times when silence equals consent, but is the loss of someone else’s life really such an instance? Is it reasonable to assume that if "je ne suis pas Charlie", I am for terrorism? No. Defending freedom of expression in the face of oppression is one thing; insisting on the right to be obnoxious and offensive just because you can is infantile. Baiting extremists isn't bravely defiant when your manner of doing so is more significant in offending millions of moderate people as well.
DeleteIts not about the drawing Andrew, its about the way they said it. Why mock a religion that so many people take so serious. I don't find anything funny about that, and neither should you. Especially since Paris, France is known to be one of the places where Muslims face the most oppression. Did you know that they wanted to ban the headscarf, what about that? Does that sound like freedom ?
DeleteYour right, fighting oppression is dangerous, but it's the only way to overcome the obstacle that is suppression. If there were another way to completely keep our freedom of speech without endangering lives, I'm sure people would stop fighting the oppression and do that. Here's the thing though, if we want any form of free speech we need to put our necks on the line and fight for it. People die every day for right to say what they want to, I hope these deaths weren't in vain.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteWhile I am against censorship, I believe that hate speech and harassment definitely should be illegal. Essentially, anything that I see as directly discriminatory or harmful is what goes against my idea of censorship. Constructive criticism vs. unsolicited harassment are very different things.
ReplyDeleteFurthermore, I find that people jump to "Freedom of speech!" as an excuse to do whatever they want without repercussions. Freedom of speech refers to the legal concept that the government cannot legally do anything about what you say (unless it becomes hate speech). Freedom of speech doesn't mean you are exempt from the criticism of others.