How far would you take 'freedom of speech'?
373011
Having the right to speak your mind should not mean that you escape the consequences of speaking your mind.  It's a double-edged sword.  For instance, you can say what you like about someone, but if you say something untrue about someone else, that person can sue you -- that's their right.  Being able to lie about someone without fear of consequences would be a bad thing.\n\nAlso, you can say what you want, but you have no right to expect someone to support what you say if they don't agree with it.  For instance, if you write an article for a magazine slamming a politician, and the owner of the magazine doesn't agree with it, he doesn't have to let you print that article using his money and his resources.  he may *choose* to allow you to do that, but he's under no obligation to -- the owner of the magazine has a right to freedom of speech, too, and your right to say what you want should not infringe on his right to use his property (the magazine) as he sees fit.\n\nAs a side note, this is not censorship.  Private citizens have the freedom to decide how their resources and property is used; only the government can be accused of censorship.\n\nSo I'd say that freedom of speech should be unrestricted, up to the point that it infringes on another person's rights (and you have no right to not be offended, so so-called 'hate speech', a chillingly Orwellian concept, does not apply).
885956
Freedom of expression because you can do what you want.
773841
u mean "where is my right of speech"?
1129435
What utter nonsense. What you want is freedom to say whatever you want without consequences.  That's a very different thing.\nPeople using this kind of question to make political points against ANY administration are just silly, as some of your answers did.  They are willing to undermine our country's reputation for political "points".\nTruth is, we have free speech, and so do the people who respond to you, argue with you, disagree with you, and even insult you. If you are watching what you say, it's because you are too timid to say what you mean and stand by it.\nYou still have the freedom to do that, and that was all that was ever granted us in the first place.\nPeople also have a right to respond to your speech.\n\nYahoo! Answers and other groups that provide a forum for you to speak get to add their own rules.  Just because you use the forum does not mean you get the right to dictate what the rules of that forum are.  They have the right, as owners of the site, to determine that.  If they wanted to limit it to people who can talk only about pink dyed poodles without the participants using the letter "p", they could (not much of a market in that), and have the right to do so.\n\nSomeone loans you a soapbox, but they get to decide whether you use it, or get to take it away if you don't follow their rules.\n\nHOWEVER, you are free to start your own website, your own newsletter, your own T.V. station, your own radio station, and you get to make the rules.\n\nIF you did, would you want people coming with insults about you and your views, or spewing filth to insist that you had to spend your money so they could "speak freely"?\n\nWhat nonsense.  You have no right to ask that.
1129470
No, your right still exists.  But the rules of decency apply here.  Personally, I don't want to hear indecent, offensive stuff and most others don't as well.
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?
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)
989738
I think true free speech is limitless, but if you say something false that incriminates or otherwise harms others, the fact that you harmed someone would be a violation of law.
927516
Even as much as I would like for some people to shut up (Charlie Rangel) I went to war so that they could have the right to speak.\n\nFreedom of speech doesn't end just because you disagree with someone.
831507
Your free to say certain things but if you stray off the script you'll soon find out how free  the speech is!
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.
211371
Nothing. They too have a right to rally peacefully and excercise their right to free speech.
1146735
Ah yes the right to free speech. Note it is freedom OF speech - not freedom FROM speech.\n\nWelcome to America!
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?
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
266193
http://www.geocities.com/haikucachoo/freedom.html\n\nhttp://www.cheathouse.com/essay/essay_view.php?p_essay_id=19771\n\nhttp://www.swimfinssf.com/2003/08/freedom_of_speech.html
469955
i know very little people that would agree with a white supremacy group.  but no one can disagree that if you were to hinder their freedom of speech, no matter how disturbing it may be, it would take a step backwards in what this country was founded to do: ultimate freedom to beleive, demonstrate, and speak what they what they will.  if that's taken away, what do we have left?