is freedom of speech limited?
103432
ideally, no. In reality, yes. One example of it is the concept of prior restraint, which is that the government stops something from being printed or published. Prior restraint is only alowed in case of messages that can put soldiers in danger (like publish where our troops are camping or where they're gonna attack). \n\nSometimes on college or university campus, there are hate speech and racist community or something like that going on. The president might stop those activities, and they're debating if it's a violation of the freedom of speech or not.
159577
Yes.  Freedom of speech does not include incitement.  You will be arrested, if you yelled "FIRE!" in a theather and cause a stampede and a few people died.
118062
Well that's true in a sense. People can speak out for what they believe and people hear, but in some countries they will be *silenced* by bad ways(to put delicatly)\nNo matter what though, I think they should outcry against it, if enough people think it's wrong and continue for a long time they could possibly do something, but it also may not help. That's the problem with freedom of speech, you can speak out but it doesn't always account for something. \nAm I making any sense? I'm sorry, my thoughts are all jumbled up!
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.
989738
I think true free speech is limitless, but if you say something false that incriminates or otherwise harms others, the fact that you harmed someone would be a violation of law.
798386
Unfortunately that is a tough one since for the most part we have freedom of speech. Call a lawyer and ask where the line between freedom of speech ends and slander begins.
697020
This is sickening to say the least.\n\nUnfortunately the US isn't far behind.  Freedom of speech should be just that, the freedom to speak - period!\n\nUntil the special interest groups, political correctness and so called multiculturalism are eliminated from society we can expect to lose more than our freedom of speech.
647908
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.
63678
"Freedom of speech" from a legal point of view means that no law should be passed preventing any person from speaking out. Thus the prohibition against censorship. However, the law also recognizes that the right to free speech should be exercised responsibly. That is why if the words uttered are untrue and hurts the reputation of another, then the speaker may be sued for libel or slander. Or if the words spoken exhorts listeners to rise up in arms against duly constituted government, the speaker may be punished for sedition.
432054
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.
1043197
There is no such thing as free speech. Freedom is an illusion.
860560
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.
802001
See newt gingrich's comment about restricting free speech, kinda says it all. I say any attempt to limit free speech or any other attacks on our constitution should be dealt with by revolution!
898090
Yup.Free speech is for them only, don't ya know that??\n\nThats why you have had 5 accounts suspended..
574010
I agree.  "Freedom of Speech" does not apply to websites that are privately owned.  You follow the owner's rules or leave.
363621
Legally, yes.\n\nFreedom of speech is one of the most misunderstood topics in the U.S. today. You only have "freedom of speech" in the sense that the *government* may not *prevent* you from speaking on the basis of what you *might* say or *intend* to say. It does not prevent the government from punishing you from what you say, if what you say is actionable, and places no restrictions on your employer's ability to regulate in any manner (including prior prevention or interruption) what you say while working. In many cases, your employer may take punitive actions as a result of your speech during non-working time as well.
863426
Not a damn thing,freedom of speech.......