Until what point does the right to free speech allow a person to make statements that incite religious hatred?
99994
Did I miss something here? So far two people have referenced riot.\n\nYou have the right to free speech until someone finds it offensive and takes you to court for it.\n\nI belive the case was Chaplinsky v New Hampshire. \n\nIn short, if what you are saying in a public place offends the majority of the people around you and pose a 'breach of peace', you are not protected.
27877
Freedom of speech-say whatever you want to say\nFreedom of press-magazines, newspaper, etc can write whatever the way\nFreedom of religion-be whatever religion you wanna be
24175
You have freedom of speech in the US, criminally you cannot be charge with a crime speaking your mind. The only thing you cannot say is Fire in a public place and that you are going to kill our presdent, those two thing are illegal to say.\n\nNow civilly, you can be brought to court for saying lies (slander) or damaging statements about people that affected them in some way. \n\nThere are very limited consquences for using your right to free speech.
200169
In a free society, there is no such thing as the "right" to not be subjected to offensive things. \n\nIf you read the newspaper, browse the web, watch TV, etc. you will be offended in the West. \n\nYou do have the right to protest (peacefully), picket, rally other people to do the same.\n\nIf their "deen" (a Muslim word for faith) is strong, they shouldn't worry about what some non-Muslim has to say about their religion.\n\nYes, I've seen the cartoons. They're a lot less offensive than what the OFFICIAL newspapers of some nations such as Saudi Arabia, Syria, Iran, etc. say about Judaism
197061
The First:\nCongress 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.
758283
Yes, they have every right to condemn such a law. What a person wants to wear is up to a person's personal choices, as long as it levels to decency. That country is violating rights to religious freedom. No one has any right to interfere into other people's faith's.
968799
There is a name for people who think it is a violation of their rights if they are denied the opportunity to use the coercive power of the state to shove their god down every ones throat (legislate morality) that name is "Bible Nazi".
898161
1. Freedom of religion - a person has the right to choose his religion and not to join a religion.\n\n2. Freedom of the press - the people has the right to air their grievances through an independent media.
1140358
IMHO, governments should keep away from all matters religious in the same way that religious figures and organizations should keep their hands off politics.\nThis kind of interference with the public's right to learn someone's point of view is an ugly violation of freedom of speech.
789945
When you repeal that section of the First Amendment.  You know, the part that says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."
124486
Anyone can say anything he or she wants in this country - however that person can be held accountable for damage, defamation, reckless disregard for truth of falsity, libel, slander, - and yes, Diamond D. is correct. \n\nEven if I do NOT like what some one says, publishes, broadcasts, it is not against the law unless it falls out side of Constitutionally protected speech.  We have no prior restraint ( Near V Minn ) and one can collect damages for Actual Malice ( New York Times vs Sullivan ) - if they are not a public figure.\n\nFreedom of speech comes with responsibility and consequences.  And again to the Love it or Leave its out there - I would NEVER censor or try to deny their rights to their free expression of opinion.  They are American citizens and their speech is as protected - as MINE is. \n\nWorks both ways - but I will support their rights to free speech even if they do NOT support mine.
223801
Printing such things about ANY prophet, Islam, Christianity, Jewism..... has got nothing to do with freedom of speech.\nIn Europe even a researcher can't say that my research has led me to the fact that the holocaust might not have taken place, it might be just a story, in France and other parts of Europe, girls can't ware hijab when they go to school, do you see any FREEDOM in this? Freedom of speech is just a tool!!
1085651
1. The right to practice whatever Religion you wish\n2. the write to print the Truth even if it's negative\n3. the right to speak the Truth even if it is negative\n4. the right to assemble peacefully\n5. the right to petition grievances
269175
Freedom of speech applies when you reach 18.  If you have to make sarcastic comments, you may and should be censured.
1186978
"I disapprove of what you say. I disagree with what you say. And I defend your right to say it."\n\nThis is the essence of free speech in a free society. I am very sad reading the posts here from people born and raised in America who still can't understand this basic concept.
189128
NO one has a right to impose his / her religion on anybody. But he can work to spread his religion and its on the other person to accept it or not. None of the religions of the world teach to impose the religion by force.
266260
The First Amendment reads:\n\nCongress 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\nThat means that criticism of the Government or of individuals is generally allowed. If it is libellous, then public officials can take legal action to defend their reputation. \n\nIn the world wars, the Supreme Court upheld laws against sedition. However, since the second world war, the Supreme Court has generally found in favour of free speech. In Yates vs Smith, the Supreme Court ruled that the Smith Act was aimed at "the advocacy of action, not ideas". In other words, a person would have to specifically have to advocate violent action against the US Government in order to be seditious.