Do you feel there should be limitations to freedom of speech? Or allow anyone to say whatever they feel?
104127
The obvious example is not to scream "FIRE" in a crowded theater. I can say anything I want to, but will the outcome injure people?  Freedom is restraint, words and deeds. Limitations on my freedom come from within me, that's called restraint.  You can say almost anything to me and I won't get offended, others are not the same. I hope this makes sense.
741301
at this point there is nothing i can do about it, i try to vote to put lawmakers with my point of view in office, but time and time again lawmakers are put into that dont even hint to the constitution.  \nFree speech is a constitutional right, that i think i should have but it will probably be taken away again by regulating the internet, its only a matter of time!!
803062
It depends. If a person is offended because of a what the person says in a different group or situation then someone should step in and voice with reason and not with anger.\n\nShalom
1034974
You can say whatever you want.\n\nGo for it.
103050
I think you are very brave to speak out the way you do.  You deserve the have the same rights as others to write what you think. We write our opinions only. We do not force anyone to agree with us..so you should have the same rights.
644347
I think it's great when used properly, everyone should be able to have his or her own voice on everything.  Theirs nothing wrong with freedom of speach.\n\nBut it does piss me off when some people try to label other things, such as harassment, as freedom of speech.
41348
You are allowed to ask more questions than that, as long as you abide by the rules. That is not hard to do. People do not have a right to be crude, or babble.
358073
No! For me personally, it is more about the language used to express some ideas. I too have served in the military and stand for freedom of speech.It is not necessary to yell,use foul words,throw things,   destroy people or property to get your point across. Yet all too often we do.Ask why? To be a better listener is a start.
274742
There are limits on freedom of speech. Recently, a Danish newspaper printed a catricture of Muhammad, the prophet of Islam and it resulted in petitions, letters from head of Muslim states, and protests, both peaceful and violent. The reaction was very negative.\n\nA good quote on this issue is, "''The liberty of the press is indeed essential to the nature of a free state; but this consists in laying no previous restraints upon publications, and not in freedom from censure for criminal matter when published. Every freeman has an undoubted right to lay what sentiments he pleases before the public; to forbid this, is to destroy the freedom of the press: but if he publishes what is improper, mischievous, or illegal, he must take the consequences of his own temerity. To subject the press to the restrictive power of a licenser, as was formerly done, both before and since the Revolution, is to subject all freedom of sentiment to the prejudices of one man, and make him the arbitrary and infallible judge of all controverted points in learning, religion and government. But to punish as the law does at present any dangerous or offensive writings, which, when published, shall on a fair and impartial trial be adjudged of a pernicious tendency, is necessary for the preservation of peace and good order, of government and religion, the only solid foundations of civil liberty. Thus, the will of individuals is still left free: the abuse only of that free will is the object of legal punishment. Neither is any restraint hereby laid upon freedom of thought or inquiry; liberty of private sentiment is still left; the disseminating, or making public, of bad sentiments, destructive to the ends of society, is the crime which society corrects." - W. Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England 151-52.\n\nI believe that freedom of speech can and should be limited, and all that freedom of speech means is that Congress should not make laws that place previous restraints on the press or on speech. Illegal speech can and should be punished. A person should be able to say whatever they want but they should also be accountable for what they say.
103891
I think that generally, people should be able to speak about anything.  There have to be exceptions made where public safety or an important government need (a much more narrowly defined concept then it might appear) are involved.  For example, defamation is one area where I am pleased that the law curtails inappropriate speech.  Also, to paraphrase Justice Holmes, can you imagine the mayhem that would be caused if the law didn't threaten to punish people who would otherwise yell fire in a crowded auditorium when in fact no fire existed?  People could be trampled to death for the sake of preserving one person's right to speak freely in all circumstances.  Surely, that is not the result you desire.  I am in favor, however, of open debate and discourse on all topics and in all manners where public safety and important government interest (again narrowly defined) are not implicated.
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.
221858
What do you mean the right? We have free speech don't we?
235534
You have the freedom of speech, as guarenteed in the first amendment to the Constitution.  However, freedom of speech is not freedom to yell "fire" in a crowded theatre.  Your freedoms cease when they become harmful to another.\n\nCensorship walks that fine line.  Where does your freedom begin to harm others?  Maybe when you use the F-word in an open forum, where kids as young as 8 can easily read them?  Maybe talking about sexual relations, where the same 8 year old may believe every word you say...whether or not you (1) know what you are talking about or (2) are kidding?\n\nYou have the freedom, and inherent to that freedom is the duty to use it responsibility.  If you fail in that, the freedom is taken away.
394788
Yes, you're correct, technically, but it's too dangerous now to exercise that particular form of freedom of speech. (and your picture is beautiful...I don't know what the first answerer is talking about)
138518
There is limit for everything. Anything beyond limit hurts the people. The same rule applies to FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION.\n\nBOYCOTT DANISH PRODUCTS.....\n\nI stopped using Danish products, and suggest everybody to do the same.
1137551
They have the right to say what they want. But everyone else has the right to think they are morons and not listen to them anymore. Don't play with fire if you don't want to get burned.
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!