Should laws censor public statements becasue of the POSSIBILITY that they incite religious hatred?
99987
No way..in US citizens would not stand for such a law.
897884
The answer is they should be allowed to talk about their faith.\nThe word of caution is that the speech should be about personal experiences and how faith has helped the person talking.\nThe reason religion is sometimes banned from speeches is that it inevitably leads to some sort of weird comparisons to people with other faiths (or no religious affiliation) in a negative connotation. \nI have no problem when someone says something like: "I am so happy to be here, and I thank God for helping me through the tough times and guiding me."\nBut not something that sounds: "I am a better person because I have my God on my side, and you don't"
1418
No, at least not in the US. It goes with the whole "freedom of speech" thing. The first amendment says:\n\n"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."\n\nIf someone is telling you how to speak in your own backyard, your first amendment rights are being violated.\n\nHowever if you're cursing loud enough to disturb your neighbours, then you're infringing on their rights, in which case you can be charged with a disorderly persons offence.
841796
Although we have free speech in America if our speech incites a riot or if it is reasonable to assume that what you say could incite others to do harm or break the law then there can be legal repercussions.  The reason this so seldom happens though is because it has to be proved that the actions of others were the direct and sole result of the words or actions of another and this can be hard to do.
566144
I love it how members of this "loving" cult say that they are the kindest people you will ever meet, yet when you say you dont believe in God, they say you will go to hell.  What is loving about that?\n\nOFA, there is no law preventing the insults of individuals or groups, in fact it is protected under the First Amendment... except this is a website that is not under American law, it is under international law.
358956
Surely a question wont be a risky for your life but if you  cock-and-bull story cause of your hostile toward muslims then your religion will be on line in the public thoughts.
146003
No absolutely not, it shouldn't be illegal to offend anyone.  That's freedom of speech.  I think our dialogue should be civil and sensitive, but in a democracy people disagree and are going to get offended.\n\nIf we can't offend anyone then all of a sudden we're living in a fascist state where the "offended" hold all the power over what the rest of us can say and think.
300403
First, a review. The current restrictions on free speech fall into several categories.\n\nLaws can restrict people (actually, punish them after the fact) from exercising their rights to free speech if those rules pass strict scrutiny. This means that the law/rule must be designed to achieve a compelling govt interest, and be narrowly tailored to achieve that interest/goal through the least restrictive means. \n\nFor example, the govt has a compelling interest in preventing civil violence. Therefore, people cannot incite unlawful action or express themselves in such a way that they would provoke others to attack them. This is the familiar "fighting words" exemption. Incitement is not protected speech.\n\nAnother non-protected category is where people make "true threats" of imminent unlawful harm. True threats are also not protected speech.\n\nAlso, people are not allowed to spread blatant lies about someone that hurts the target's reputation. Defamation (libel and slander) is not protected speech. Still, if the statements are about a public figure or matter of public concern, even false statements are allowed if the speaker does not know they are false. This is because the constitutional free speech protections are stronger than the absolute ban when it comes to public matters.\n\nFinally, in a different direction, people cannot reveal national security secrets, because of the potential harm. Since this is such an immediate and likely-resulting danger, the prohibition put in place BEFORE the speaker reveals the information, rather than punishing them afterwards.\n\n\nThese are the existing restrictions. Past US laws (see the Sedition Act) have tried to make it illegal to question or criticize the government. The purpose of this law was to support the US government, by preventing any criticism of it. Some would argue that national stability is more important than the right to complain or criticize. The argument was basically: If you don't like what the government is doing, then just vote differently next time. But criticism of elected officials just undermines the public sense of security.\n\nSimilar arguments could be made anytime an issue is politically or emotionally charged. If public calm and peaceful existence are considered compelling interests (which is not too much of a stretch for the imagination) then the government would be able to punish any speech that disrupts the public peace. This includes prohibiting any protest rallies, or other hot-button issues. As the argument goes, since public security is dependent upon calm and orderly conduct, any threat to that calm is a threat to security. Under this theory, the government has a compelling interest in making sure that only non-conflict-causing speech is expressed.\n\nTo be clear: I don't agree with the above arguments. I think people should be allowed to say anything they want, provided they accept the consequences for their speech. For example, if someone spreads lies about a person, that's defamation (libel and slander) and they have to pay for the damage they cause. Just like a tresspasser would have to pay for any damage they cause to property. But that's not a reason to prevent people walking around.
1007706
I don't think anyone ever said that you can't talk about religion.  You are not supposed to make laws based on religious beliefs.  If we did that, very little would have changed in our country's history.  I agree with you on the Ten Commandments thing.  I think you may be preaching to the choir, so to speak.  But as they say, "The sqeaky wheel gets the grease."  That doesn't make it right, though.  I don't see a question here, so don't be surprised if you get reported for ranting, because you aren't really supposed to do that here.
418044
Speaking out against them is one thing, promoting hatred and actual assault is another.  Words are all we have sometimes to convey ideas, and most religions are a quest for truth, which is an idea hard to present in another way.  Sometimes the only way to define the truth is to point out the lies.\n\nIf the words do not promote/encourage hatred of people or criminal activities (riots, assaults, suicide bombings, etc) then let them speak.  Truth will always prove itself out in the end.
463021
I think that people should stop condemning other people because of their own beliefs. If what someone else is doing does not physically affect you or any one else, mind your own business. No one person or their religious beliefs run this country, and that is why religion and government can not be mixed and should not be mixed>>>>>>>>>>>>.
1001276
YES!!! If the Under God part offends anyone, then they have the right NOT to say it.  I can remember being in class with kids who didn't say it for religious or personal reasons.  NO ONE said anything mean to them or made fun of them.  We asked them why & they gave us their reasons.  It was fine with everyone.
448860
Unfortunately yes, a bill is being reviewed in Congress over the possible ban of religious texts upon public transportation.  Luckily its not a very popular bill.  Seems like a violation of the separation of church and state clause in the constitution.
347008
Absoultely nothing. If parents are afraid their children are being exposed to something questionable, then the parents should make a point of supervising their children whenever possible. It might not be a perfect plan, but it's better than censorship.
180919
The line is drawn between free speech and hate speech.\nThis is a theory developed by freedom of expression supporters which is ment to define what goes and what doesn't.\n\nDefinition varies and many disagree on what goes where (eg: most people would see the Holocaust matter brought under free speech, on certain conditions, while others still want to keep the taboo).\n\nGenerally speaking, free speech embraces things that aren't particulartly aimed at hurting or insulting others and are supported by accepted arguments, facts and proof.\nOn the other hand hate speech are opinions gratuituously spilled just to provoke and insult.\n\nThis doesn't help much and the debate goes on.\nStill most people see the cartoon deal under hate speech because it's not sustainable by arguments (there are many ways to make fun of Islam without resorting to attacking religious principles of non-graphical depiction).\n\nA more fierce debate goes around the Holocaust, where free-speech supporters say that discussions around the events and the number of victims should be allowed and proof needs to be gathered to support supporters and deniers (if the supporters are right, why do they need a law to hide behind if they have strong arguments).
127877
Freedom of speech also grants you the right to insult as sad as that may be to some who do not understand those freedoms.  You can not lie about a person speaking, or in written form (slander or libel), in a fashion that will actually cost that person economically due to loss of revenue or actual losses.  Then you may be taken to court and have a judgement placed against you  and have to pay damages to the injured party.  The problem with this comes from different cultures and what one considers freedom of speech the other considers outright insult.  Which has happened and people are being killed over it in protests and most of the people being killed are the ones protesting about being insulted.  This make no sense from either culture and we should all pray for peace and understanding between our people's.
136997
Yes, it should be of unlimited proportions. Freedom of speech should not and cannot be twisted to the point where it is no longer freedom of speech.\n\nHowever, freedom of speech goes hand in hand with the idea of personal responsibility and accountability. Producing those cartoons was technically legal, but it was irresponsible. Surely the cartoonist knew that those cartoons would cause trouble in extremist countries.\n\nHowever, I also think that the Islamic world is greatly overreacting. They are ruining their credibility and making themselves look like a bunch of whinging little kids who riot at the most petty insult. Do you know how many "Jesus Christ" parody websites exist online? How many Christians burn down embassies for stuff like that?