Do you think that freedom of press should be controled  by the law , or it shoud be absolute freedom?
146215
It is controlled by libel and slander laws.  That being said there should be sanctions against those who plagerize, lie, and release national security information. Whether it's just the free market that controls it the editors there should be some sort of oversight.\n\nThere is not absolute rite to freedom of speech and there is no absolute rite when it comes to the press either
766591
simply put, it is true that we should have freedom but most people that are advocates of 'freedom' in all its forms forget that having freedom is not one-sided.  freedom's twin is 'responsibility'.  one's freedom ends when it starts to encroach on another's.  freedom should be viewed in the correct perspective.  rules and regulations and norms are in place to enforce some sort of order.  but better than rules and regulations are PRINCIPLES.  when we know, have and practice the correct set of principles (which can be summarized into two: love God with all our heart, soul, mind, strength; and love our neighbor as ourselves) then we are able to live responsibly and know the limitations of our freedom.
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!
282030
Just because people are rich and famous doesn't mean they are evil or comaparable to sickos, or need to have their privacy invaded. How would you feel? You may be too close to this project to see that nobody should encroach on anyone else's rights...there is such a thing as free speech, too.
230997
i believe in certain situations it would be permissable. for example, if what somebody is doing affects another person or group in a negative way then the government should be allowed to step in. the government works for us as a whole, not each individual person. we are allowed certain freedoms and to do most things the way we want to but there are limits on everything. if protecting society by limiting one person's freedoms is the best plan of action then the government should have every right to do so
155702
yes i think that censorship limits freedom of speech. censorship pretty much tells everyone that we cannot express the way we feel or what we think. if those who signed the bill of rights really didnt want to be able to express ourselves the way want they would have probably said that we had the freedom of censorship and not speech or some of the people would simply not have signed it all.
418754
Let the freedom of expression remain available to the whole world.\nNo exceptions !!
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.
177505
We don't have freedom of expression.  We have free speech.  We have laws to protect this right, and laws against the things you mentioned.  The only thing missing is ethics on the part of the public.  Remember the quote:\n\n‘When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle.’ \n\nThat quote from Edmund Burke in ‘Thoughts on the Cause of Present Discontents’ has, in general use, come to be delivered as, ‘The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.’ \n\nWhich ever version you prefer, the message is the same: evil will, therefore good must.\n\nPeople too often remain silent, then wonder why "Government", as if it some outside agency, does not control their lives more.  Look to your own lives and ask, "Have I been more present and active in protecting our institutions of free speech, journalism, publishing, and other media?"\n\nThat is the only way it will change, not further legislation and government paper and ink.
489516
It is important to always protect the freedom of the press.  At the same time, I think it is wrong how the paparazzi harrass celebrities.  I don't consider following somebody everywhere they go and taking their pictures as a necessary part of freedom of the press.  This is just stalking people with a camera.  The paparazzi that harrass celebrities should be arrested.  It's also the fault of the public.  People should respect the privacy of celebrities and not support the gossip papers that give money to papparazzi.
325444
Yes. Eventhough we have the freedom off press, the government is allowed to "regualte" our tv programs. That's where the FCC comes in.
1163981
I think that the current government of my country is absolutely great!  The largest problem is the media.  Since free speech is allowed, the news media slants the news to try to influence others to the media's viewpoint.  However, if we want to preserve our right to free speech, we must all accept the media and their unethical tactics.
1185151
Why are you such hypocrites-the US citizens I mean? Why do you want other countries to allow freedom and want to muzzle your own press?\nst
898813
i say that only law enformcment should own guns....not like typical people. thats how guns get stolen and ppl get shot
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?
819596
What a brilliant topic!  You coulld write heaps on this.  Three items I'd be prepared to give up? Let's see, I object to too much government interference in my life, but acknowledge the need for a central organising power.  So, perhaps look at what changes have happened, especially since 9/11, to personal freedoms. And what people have seemed to accept, more or less willingly, in order to ensure safety.  It's much easier to list three items you WOULDN"T give up.  I wouldn't give up right to free speech, for example.  It's too important.
638339
It's kind of a false dilemma.  Security and freedom can coexist, it just makes it a little harder.  I personally would rather be able to read, write, think, or say whatever I want without sanction than feel secure under surveillance.