why is it against the law to deny the hollocaust ? isn't  that contradictory to the freedom of speech?
152669
I remember that disgraceful persecution of David Irving - an honest, unprejudiced, truth-telling man.  The Jews nailed him - he even had a Jewish judge deciding the case.\nRead his book about WW11 "Churchill's War" - it's straight reporting too.\nBy the way, the best book on the so-called Holocaust is "The Great Hoax", written about 20 years ago by a completely unprejudiced American who researched the subject for 10 years and wrote a very thick book - by far the most complete examination of the topic.  His conclusion was that a maximum of 150,000 Jews were killed in the whole of Europe during the Hitler time, in one way or another - certainly not by gassing.  Unfortunately I can't remember his name.  Can anyone remind me and say if this book can still be obtained : it's high time this whole thing was sorted out, don't you think?
236334
Haven't heard of them.  Anyway, free speech is a two-way street - they are entitled to voice their opinion.  Just because they're calling for law, doesn't mean it will happen.  They very likely know such a law won't pass, and they're doing it for publicity, press, hype, airtime, and public discussion (just like this!) for their point of view.
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!
827679
unfortunately Conservatives such as sway are making it much more difficult for people like you and I to speak freely and openly on whatever subject we see fit. The right to free speech is important, otherwise we would live in a police state. That is why it is important, we need to avoid Martial law, something many people are afraid Bush is capable of.
727347
What? About anything?  There are already certain restrictions.\nThe First Amendment (in the U.S.) does not include speech considered "incitement" -- speech encouraging imminent violence.  It also does not cover criminal speech, such as conspiracy (provided that, at least under federal law, there was an affirmative act in furtherance of the conspiracy).  In addition, criminals on probation are often restricted from being around or maintaining contact with known criminals, incidentally affecting their speech.\nBut the ability for people to associate and discuss politically controversial topics (whether it's racial segregation, the establishment [politically] of a Muslim [or Christian] theocracy, universal health care, the end of the death penalty, or a prohibition on abortoin) is the core of the First Amendment.  Just because you don't like the speech doesn't allow you to censor it.  Outside of the particularized harms listed above, and a few others (like fighting words, defamation, intellectual property infringement, etc.) we have to protect the speech, because some day you might want to associate and say something unpopular, too.
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.
347649
This is NOT a freedom of speech issue. No one has the right to publish on Answers. It would be like sending an article to a newspaper and demanding that they print it because you think that's "free speech." The newspaper has the right to refuse to publish obscene, racist, vile, reprehensible material -- as well as any other material. Yahoo! owns this site and has the right to decide what stays and what goes. If you want true freedom of speech, create your own web site.\n\nBut, that said, I don't think Yahoo! does a good enough job of monitoring this site and enforcing the guidelines they do have. Until they can maintain the current guidelines, which are really the bare minimum for civil discourse, I don't think they should be stricter.
66256
Its a social experiment thats still being worked out.  There are ongoing problems, like when does freedom of speech become libel?\n\nIts not perfect, but works reasonably well in the western world compared to other systems.  There is accountability.  There is representation. We can't be held without charge, we can't be convicted without trial.
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.
873498
Anything inciting a riot, disruption of peace, and anything involving a conspiracy to incite, or act, with depraved indifference from this speechs consequence, including the possibility TOWARDS a crime being commited from this right (free speech, as it was intended for), in my opinion, is not free speech.
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.
223134
I support the right to publish the toons.  But with free speech you need to have respect and restraint.  You should publish something just because you can.  So if the material is disrespectful, or offensive, you need to be sure that's what you want to do...in this case it feels like they just published them to see if they could get a rise out of people. That's wrong.
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.
527274
The US Supreme Court has held that flag burning as an act of protest is "symbolic speech" and therefore protected by the First Amendment.\nHaving said this, I would advise not doing so as the Republicans are looking for an "issue" to whip up the far right.  (Somehow bringing peace and democracy to Iraq doesn't have appeal anymore.)  Nothing brings out the crazies like someone else exercising free speech they don't like.
163074
i think its been taken to the extreme..\n\nby law, we are not allowed to yell *fire* in a crowded public area. common sense would deduct, all statements that could incite riot or fear should be illegal.\n\nexamples..\n\n"Im going to kill,blow-up,destry,murder, some person,body,child,building--etc." \nshould be illegal.Unfortunately it took 911 to get laws changed about *free speech*.\n\nnow, we argue over merry christmas,holidays..etc. When i was a child, we were just happy if someone wished us a *happy--* whatever..because at least the thought was with good intent.
237658
The First Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees, among other things, freedom of speech, but this right is not absolute.  Certain types of speech are not protected by the Constitution, which means that State goverments may promulgate laws to limit them.  Examples include "fighting words" (words meant to provoke a physical fight), "commercial speech" (claims made in advertising), "obscenity" (prurient language), etc.
1005158
Would you like the government to outlaw unpopular thought?  How long will it take for you to formulate an unpopular belief?  \nAre you prepared to go to jail for your beliefs?\n\nYou can't legislate how someone should feel about another person.  While racism "sucks" it is inherently protected by the first amendment.\n\nTry to avoid the question of "why isn't the government doing anything about it...they love to take away freedoms rather than protect them.....so I would rather they stay out of it...and besides....free speech allows the civilized people to keep track of the crazies.