It's been used throughout our history, as it has in other nations, and both President Clinton and President Bush has had to deal with it.  But it's come to my attention that a lot more people are speaking up against the name-calling and seditious behavior people have claimed no one should call them on (forgetting that we have free speech as well).  Is anyone else noticing this?  Is there anything we can do to encourage it while not discouraging people from questioning government policies?  Is it that hard to say, "I disagree with ..." without comparing Bush to Hitler or Clinton to Caligula?   Do we have to undermine our own country to make a point, or remain silent while others do it just because they say that to disagree with them is to offend them and thus restrain their "free speech".  Are we now hostage to the fear of offending others?  What do you think?
212348
In Britain, it's both annoying and amusing to hear politicians resort to personal comments (which they do a lot). If you actually watch parliamentary debates they make sarcastic comments and laugh at whoevers speaking. In European politics, there was an uproar after Italians and Germans began calling each other members of the Gestapo etc. \n\nMaybe sometimes you need to just laugh, but I agree, it's not helpful when people compare Bush to a dictator etc because their exaggeration undermines their argument.
500304
I know where you are coming from. I had the same issue in the religion section.\n\nFreedom of speech issues aside i think it comes down to how precious and sensitive the people who see your question are.\n\nI usually found my questions were quickly reported because the questioned the church and seeing that good xtrians couldnt support an argument against me I would get reported instead. No doubt done with lots of xtrian love and piety. Self righteous Barstards\n\nOh and the Yahoo thought police dont like anyone saying things against George Bush either.
355359
It's used all the time ! anywhere and everywhere. Look at the elections coming up. If it weren't for propaganda and the disinformation , there would be no political news on T.V.\nI want to know how they stand not what their opponents can accuse them of, and hope it sticks. I guess most people do not feel this way, as the politicians continue to use this negative campaigning. It is so aggravating!\nI think most people have their minds made up long before the election , and when they hear a negative view , against their party, They disregard it and when it is against his opponent, they agree with it. So it really does not win any votes at all!.
489612
Hmmm.. I've always thought we have freedom of speech as long as we keep our mouths shut. :)
205952
Becuse we are still in the process of a massive social change in attitudes.  Racist, sexist and homophobic views have been the norm for most of history and it is only in my lifetime that it has become normal to consider that the races are equal, that religions should tolerate and respect each other, that homosexuality is OK, that women should have equal rights, and so on.\n\nA lot of hateful and offensive language has been eradicated from common vocabulary and this is largely a good thing.\n\nHowever, there will inevitably be areas in which the "PC" revolution has gone to far and some people have been unduly fanatical in their determination not to offend.  For example, my wife routinely criticises me for asking for a "black coffee" instead of a "coffee with milk" because she thinks I may give offence.\n\nIn some cases, the determination not to offend has violated the rules of common sense.  In other cases, the right not to be offended has trumped the right of free speech.  Over the next couple of decades, various anomolies will be corrected.  Middle aged white hetrosexual men will assert that they have rights too!
668170
no one should say it, it's derogatory, but we get more when a white person says it than a black person because of the history behind the word. it was used to humiliate and honestly it still does. I don't use it and I get pissed when anyone calls me that.
447712
You're correct.  We accept free speech unless it offends us.  Take for instance the Michael Richards thing. Now the Laugh Factory is putting a ban on the word n*gger.  What happened to free speech?  Then again, that's a private business and he can run it the way he wants.   It's an interesting world, the same people that cry "free speech" are the same that would cry "censor" if the speech is not favorable to them.
509242
I agree that you shouldnt have to if you dont want to.  But to BAN it is absurd, so if you did go and say it would you get in trouble?  People who disagree with this should stand up and say it anyways, its protected by the first amendment.
96650
Haven't heard of them.  Anyway, free speech is a two-way street - they are entitled to voice their opinion.  Just because they're calling for law, doesn't mean it will happen.  They very likely know such a law won't pass, and they're doing it for publicity, press, hype, airtime, and public discussion (just like this!) for their point of view.
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!
49469
I would support the restrictions on screaming fire, etc. in a crowded theater. Such language does not really communicate any idea, but is only meant to hurt. It is basically an assault with words. It has no place in my ideal government.\nAs far as offending religions i think we should have the right to do that. It may be hurtful, but not all speech is flattering. We should have the right to make offensive cartoons. How people react to such speech is what should be dealt with, but the speech itself is not the problem.\nAlthough questioning tragedies like the holocaust seems insane, its not something we should regulate. Who knows how far it could be taken. It could evolve into not questioning the politics of a particular president. We should always have the right to evaluate history even if we're not very good at it.\nPornographic images are not pleasing to all people, but it mostly boils down to a moral question that is highly subjective. People who enjoy pornography should have every right to enjoy it. We can't make judgment on what type of media is "good" and what is "bad." pornography would be welcome in my ideal government.\nFinally, hate speech. That's a tough one because like shouting out "fire", hate speech only strives to hurt and offend. Does it also mean to communicate? to spread ideas? i'm not sure. I don't really completely understand the intentions of those who make hate speech. I know i disagree with them, but that's not where i stop my analysis. This issue is more ambiguous to me than the others, but still my gut tells me that i would allow it in my own government. I think most of society doesn't really have an open ear to hate speech anyways. If people must make hateful comments they can go ahead and do it. Society will probably ostracize them anyways.
116161
i am a pro... freedom of expression that offends others can be done but behind closed doors... the government is restricting certain expressions as there are possiblities that it may offend others around the world and this may have serious consequenses...
177213
We have a right to disagree, but not to disrespect. We can disagree in a civil matter. When we go about burning down places of worship or marking grafitti, using their icons and symbols purposely in a demeaning way...all of these are disrespectful. And one can be satirical about religions in a respectful way as well. I think we just have to ask ourself "if it were me, how would this make me feel?" before we act or before we say something...because sometimes there are better ways to phrase what we have to say, but we don't stop to take the time to really think about all the ways we can say something. If we did then we wouldn't have to say things like "I didn't mean it like that" or "oh, well you know what I really meant".
81518
Well they say we have free speech but i think its really limited speech you can say what you want as long as it dont offend somebody which is hard to do cuz you can say something and not mean nothing by it but someone could get offended
516070
Freedom of speech is not a problem in the USA.  It's alive and well.  Of course, we have our whackos too.  That is, some people believe so strongly in their opinions, that they leave no room in their minds for the opinions of others.  These types, tend to express their opinions as fact rather than opinion.  The next step is threatening others who have differnig opinions.  Happens everywhere; or so I thought.  I didn't think that was unique to the USA.  \n\nPeople in the USA also blast their politicians.  Happens almost every day.  You may not see the bulk of it in the news where you live (UK ?) but if you lived in the USA, you'd see and hear more than you might think was possible.  \n\nJust reading the questions and answers in this forum's Religion and Politics categories is enough to wear me out.  Too bad all the energy devoted to this can't be used to power our vehicles.  Would help my budget some.
621207
"Naturally the common people don't want war, but they can always be brought to their goverments bidding. Simply tell them they are being attacked and chastise the left for being unpatriotic. It works the same in every country." - Herman Goering, Hitlers Reichmarshall at the Nuremberg trials.\nRight wing radio has been a real force for the White House in promoting the separation of Americans. The reason why is simple. If we dislike each other then there is no reason to talk to one another and share ideas. If the citizenry can be kept apart then the manufacture of consent can be accomplished easier. So we call each other names and label each other as Left/Right - Republicans/Democrats - Liberal/Conservative - Red State/ Blue State. All these phrases do nothing but to split AMERICANS apart.\nThe point of public relations slogans like "Support our troops" is that they don't mean anything... That's the whole point of good propaganda. You want to create a slogan that nobody's going to be against, and everybody's going to be for. Nobody knows what it means, because it doesn't mean anything. Its crucial value is that it diverts your attention from a question that does mean something: Do you support our policy? That's the one you're not allowed to talk about. As long as we keep forgeting that we are Americans and not the divisive phrases I listed above we will never learn about our right to open discussion and ideas. Like our founding fathers intended us to be.
167398
Agree completely\n\nIt's a great way to not talk about anything important, just dumb it all the way down to good vs. bad...\nYou aren't bad are you?!?\n\nAmericans are too lazy to look into the details that will affect th rest of their lives, not to mention their kids, etc, they wanna pick a badge to wear, like Republican, or Democrat and then cowardly follow that herd.