Is it better to have laws that allow more freedoms and thus more chance for abuse by individuals, or to restrict freedoms for protection of the masses? E.g., freedom of speech allows personal expression but also easily permits the spread of untrue facts.\n\nI'm looking for educated opinions but NO party-bashing. I don't care if you hate Republicans or Socialists, I want to know what you think about this question.
128685
If you give up freedom for security, you'll end up with neither.  This is paraphrasing a statement made by that Ben Franklin guy several years ago :)  I think it's true, though.  Who cares if you are safe, if you have no freedom? If I locked you up in a box and kept you under my bed, I could totally protect you and keep you safe from everything... but would it be worth it?
461498
yes, those who take the freedom of speech to its nebulous limits certainly do so to the point of abuse, regardless of the vitriol that harms otherwise defenseless individuals or classes.\n\nthis is not an experience unique to the US; every free and democratic country that takes pride in its constitutional freedoms, speech foremost among them, guards the same, albeit with varying degrees of zealousness. often, its actual exercise and limitations are determined by national priorities, political exigencies, or its well defined criminal statutes and established jurisprudence.\n\nmost democratic societies that enshrine free speech in their constitution adopt safeguards of varying degrees of effectiveness at combatting just such abuse. more often than not, the outermost limits are determined by whether the exercise of free speech crosses the line that determines the commission of an offense / crime defined by the country's criminal statutes, e.g., what one country defines as amounting to libel, oral defamation, grave slander, subversion or inciting to sedition may be radically different from another's. it's the country's criminal statutes and established jurisprudence that determine whether that line has been crossed for the authorities to in the interest of the majority, or for the offended to sue for redress and/or compensation for damages.\n\nother jurisdictions (countries) may recognize and enshrine the freedom in its fundamental law but justify the severe limitation on its exercise with such catch-all phrases as "national security", political realities and/or economic exigencies. in point of fact and by way of example, the philippine dictator marcos silenced the political opposition by criminalizing "rumour-mongering".\n\nin jurisdictions with particularly fragile economies, the mere dissemination of unverified information that may affect, or have, in fact, adversely affected the national economy, has been considered a crime of grave national proportions, amounting to "economic sabotage".\n\nwhile it is  a great reality that we have a freedom of speech that we have every right to defend zealously, it is, likewise, a tragic reality that we can only rely on ourselves, in the very exercise of the same freedom, to voice our faith and demand its reasonable curtailment once that freedom is abused to the unfair disadvantage of any one else. after all, if we don't safeguard the freedom and fight its abuse against others, who will defend it for us when we are at the receiving end of its abuse?\n\nit really all depends on how a country's constitutional institutions value this freedom, weighing the consequences of its free exercise as against the "threat" of its dilution or endangerment by the very threat or act of prosecuting every perceived abuse or violation, regardless of its lightness or gravity.\n\nmuch also depends on how zealously the citizens safeguard evey nuance in the exercise of that freedom. probably, the US citizenry and its institutions have so zealously guarded this very right precisely because it lies at the bedrock of its constitutional foundation; a 200+ year history founded on individuality and freedom is not something to take lightly. it is a source of rightful national pride...until its abuse in a single instance so focuses national consciousness and awareness of its potential for equal national shame...because its unfettered abuse has, in fact, resulted in patently wrongful damage to honor, life and limb, national security or the comon weal.\n\nwe can only pray that we safeguard the freedom enough so that it may not be abused at our expense. a painful paradox, but a sacrifice worth taking.
172601
I don't think we've ever had true freedom of speech.  For example, you've never been able to walk into a crowded theater and yell fire.  If you do, you'll get arrested for causing a disturbance.\n\nTrue freedom of speech would be being able to say what you want, when you want regardless of what happens.  Under the bush administration I do feel like we've lost some of that freedom (If you say anything anti-Bush, you are declared a terrorist or a troop basher).  Sad days, good news is he can't be in office for that much longer!
515344
all you idiots tell this person to shut up.... then ramble on about free speech. huh?\n I say yes it would help if you enjoy killing things (sadist). and as for defending My freedom.. by killing other people who also you are trying to 'free' .. you would have to be a nutcase to see the logic in that...
368414
You hit the problem right on the head. A good answer would be a mix of both views if the public is totally against you you should follow the public unless the public wants to ignore or over ride the constitution. If the public doesn't care or is evenly split then the politicians personal convictions should win out. That would solve the problem don't you think?
115007
Our current form of Democracy is sometimes referred to as "tyranny of the masses".  In other words, the majority will constantly create and vote in laws which reduce freedoms of the minority.  And, since we all belong to some kind of minority, we will eventually create enough laws so that every-ones' freedoms are gone.  Every law passed restricts your freedom in some way and leads to harsher laws in the future.  So, in a way, you are right.  Think about that the next time you vote on a law banning something.  Just because it doesn't effect you at the time, you are giving up rights of others and your turn will come.  I also like what this Douglas guy below me has to say.  I am for less government, if it takes more political parties to do that, fine.
193243
The idea behind freedom of speech is that you can say anything you want as long as it doesn't cause the harm of others. You can't yell fire in a crowded movie theater, but you can speak out against you government or any other group. The problem is that people don't limit their actions to speech. Furthermore, our country is a lot better then pretty much any other and all you people who want to complain so much, just leave and you'll find out what it's like to be oppressed.
455
Remember that the 1st amendment only gives you protection from the Congress of the US enacting laws that interfere with your speech. Private entities (like Y! for instance) can do whatever the hell they please.\n\nI know it's infuriating. I grew up in a country where there was brutal suppression of speech of many kinds, and believe me, nothing makes you appreciate freedom like having seen what life is like without it. Nevertheless, those who own the bat and the ball  get to make the rules. If you don't like it, you're welcome to create an alternate forum where expression rights can be more to your liking.\n\nRemember, Y! is not in this business in order to promote freedom. They are in it to make $$$. And when the DOJ threatens, the risk-averse executives listen to their risk-averse lawyers and do what it takes to make their risk-averse investors happy.
199279
right on, q! \n\nthat's the one similar thing i've seen with the flaming republicans on the site. freedom, toleration, and the right to live a good life is for everyone, and not just for the people who are in the same mind frame as they are.\n\nif they put a little compassion or toleration into their ideas, it would make them look LESS ridiculous!
566495
Would you like the government to outlaw unpopular thought?  How long will it take for you to formulate an unpopular belief?  \nAre you prepared to go to jail for your beliefs?\n\nYou can't legislate how someone should feel about another person.  While racism "sucks" it is inherently protected by the first amendment.\n\nTry to avoid the question of "why isn't the government doing anything about it...they love to take away freedoms rather than protect them.....so I would rather they stay out of it...and besides....free speech allows the civilized people to keep track of the crazies.
312409
People should be free to talk about whatever, wherever without any fear of recrimination. Why should you keep politics behind closed doors?  YOu don't just accept what is thrown to you if you don't agree. Its called a democracy, and that is what freedom of speech is all about. Unfortunately radio stations & TV are mostly still controlled by Government, meaning that yes, radio stations are not free to play whatever they like. And that is what the Dixie Chicks are ranting about, the fact that radio stations are NOT free to play whatever they like.
560555
Your idea kills the whole idea of our Constitution.  People have the right to believe in different things and speak freely in America.  You are suggesting a Marxist, Totalitarian concept.  As much as some of the liberals annoy me with whining and criticizing - Occasionally they will have a good idea and it needs to be heard.  Constructive criticism is good and promotes great ideas.  Whining, Complaining, and obstructing in the name of patriotism is digusting.
533729
As much as I'd like to say that I wouldn't, because I am opposed to those actions, I'm sure I would find myself being somewhat hypocritical and saying that we should take those actions.  It's very hard to say.  I just believe that taking away civil liberties is a slippery slope.  It's just hard to balance freedom and safety.  I know what I think now, but I'm human, and I can't say that my opinions wouldn't change with another big attack.
431163
I am a conservative Republican and I absolutely believe that we have a First Amendment Right to burn the U.S. Flag.  "I may not agree with a word that you are saying, I but I would defend, to the death, your right to say it."    No law abridging "freedom of speech".  First you have to ask what "speech" is.  If you think that speech only means "the spoken and written word", then fine, that's it.  The real question becomes, how far should the government be able to go to control your message coming across?  Hey, the internet and this Board aren't mentioned.  What is stopping the Government from shutting this site down.  Typing this stupid debate is not "speech" right?  P.S. chicks are allowed to dance nude BECAUSE of the liberal interpretation of "free speech", so don't rock the boat!
519940
First question - Yes. It is a greater crime to send innocent people to jail - or worse.\n\nWe are right to take alarm at the first experiment upon our liberties.\nJames Madison \n\nI believe there are more instances of the abridgment of freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments by those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations.\nJames Madison
200523
In a ideal situation we should remove the laws that restrict posession by law abiding citizens.\n\nBut more importantly...\n\nENFORCE the laws we already have.
223899
I've said here on more than one occasion people should learn to respect the rights of others to ask anything they want.\nIf they don't like the question they don't need to answer it, but why do they feel they have the right to ask for it to be banned? \nWho made them better people than us that they can judge what is and isn't OK to answer?\n\n\nI'll say it again if you people want censorship and all that is associated with it, have questions banned, if you want freedom of speech you have to take the rough with the smooth and accept that there are people with ideas that you won't like.\n\n\nTo answer the question: I think that given the same circumstances and an even chance there will be no difference in the intelligence of any race. We're all as stupid as each other.\nIf ethnic minorities get a level playing field is a completely different question.