do you think censorship limits freedom of speech?
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.
490413
I've said here on more than one occasion people should learn to respect the rights of others to ask anything they want.\nIf they don't like the question they don't need to answer it, but why do they feel they have the right to ask for it to be banned? \nWho made them better people than us that they can judge what is and isn't OK to answer?\n\n\nI'll say it again if you people want censorship and all that is associated with it, have questions banned, if you want freedom of speech you have to take the rough with the smooth and accept that there are people with ideas that you won't like.\n\n\nTo answer the question: I think that given the same circumstances and an even chance there will be no difference in the intelligence of any race. We're all as stupid as each other.\nIf ethnic minorities get a level playing field is a completely different question.
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.
337512
its just plain 'ol censorship\nnothing you can do about it
502461
good question.  maybe its some wierd form of censorship?
254312
Sure, it could be argued that censoring it lends it an appearance of legitimacy, but I think any risks of people taking it more seriously because it is recognized and censored do not outweigh the necessity of taking into account the pain and offense that some people might feel at the prospect of these ideas.  Holocaust denial, for example, is a spit in the face - to put it mildly - to millions of Jews and other peoples who suffered at the hands of the Nazis.  Denying them the right to their history is unfair, and only expounds a problem that has already been exacerbated.\n\nNazism, on the other hand, is arguably a valid concern.  Though I doubt facism would ever rise to the same level it peaked at in the thirties and forties, it is still a legitimate political ideology, and it goes by many names, one of which is Nazism or Neo-Nazism.  To allow people to run rampant with such ideas is another affront at the history of atrocities committed in the name of such facism, and ought to be prevented.\n\nThe issue of freedom of expression - which does not exist in Germany to the extent that it does here in the US - should not be misused so as to condone such behaviours and ideas.  I think the US is even too lax in this department, allowing such groups as the KKK to voice their sentiments.  There is a limit to where freedom of expression impedes upon another person's ability to experience civil freedom, and that's unallowable.  This could shoot off into a related debate, concerning where to draw the line and why, but point being, I do think it ought to be censored.  Ideas such as these should not be condoned by "civilized" humanity.
574010
I agree.  "Freedom of Speech" does not apply to websites that are privately owned.  You follow the owner's rules or leave.
135035
There is no limit to expression. Everybody has the freedom of expression. \nFor example if one speaks of a case which is still in the court, one may come under the contempt of court.....So one should express their concerns carefully. \n\nIn china the freedom of expression is limited. \n\nIn Islam the freedom of expression is limited...nobody should draw a picture of God...otherwise its sin...\n\nThe western society is more open to sex, democracy, justice, etc. It all depends on the society what it views the "FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION". \n\nSo the society, religion, family values, personal beliefs and the government limits the freedom of expression.....so that all lead a life of peace without any disturbance and in some cases control the people.
794309
Free Speech should only be limited to threaten to do physical harm to a person. However; to report someone with a different political, sexual, religious, or social view; is simply vindictive and creates censorship.
869836
Your other respondents have already given you the basic answer.  Where your expression creates an imminent danger to other citizens, then that expression is not allowed.  Some words are considered too inflammatory for public expression, or "fighting words".  You cannot express yourself to the point of provoking others to violence or panic where public safety is jeopardized.  That is common sense and our laws were written with a common sense public in mind.  In other words, most of us know what is right and what is wrong.  We know better than to incite a riot with lying words in a polarized crowd for instance.  Because some people are too dense to use common sense, we have had to verbalize and memorialize some of those restrictions.  Call it censorship if you wish but it is really stating certain restrictions on the freedom of expression that most of us already clearly understand.
838384
yes there is freedom of speech but there are a lot of kids on this site, would you like for them to read a bunch of explicit sex stuff?\nwould you like someone trying to sell you stolen goods on here?\nwould you like it if all the obnoxious racist questions stay on?
642999
censorship in what aspect of life ?????
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.
1104272
doesn't it suck that you have to *** out the word ***** ?  it's such a beautiful word, censorship sucks!
799940
It's just a game support the ruler no matter how violently out of control he gets and if you don't you're a traitor/ unpatrioitic.\n\nOf course in the US, so called land of the free (haha excuse me while I collapse in hysterical fits of laughter) you're supposed to have freedom of speech but I think Bush is doing a pretty good job of abolishing that supported by his red necks who will still be waving flags when he locks them all up for 9 o'clock curfew.
965703
Freedom of expression, and most other "freedoms" are under threat.  Not in America, typically in most capitalist countries, it's a trade of civil liberities for more economic freedom.\n\nFree speech seriously doesn't exist in America.  I cannot say whatever I want.  End of story,  I can probably think of a dozen things that I can say that will simply get me in trouble.\n\nCensorship is america's pastime.  Especially since government also decides the standard for morals as well.\n\nFreedom of Speech is one of our rights that everyone believes we hve, but try testing it out, there is no freedom here, you will be kept in line, like a monkey.
898090
Yup.Free speech is for them only, don't ya know that??\n\nThats why you have had 5 accounts suspended..