Do we really understand the concept of Freedom of Speech?
412329
Of course one cannot use one's rights as a defense of a crime.\n\nSome speech is a crime: inciting to riot, advocating the violent overthrow of the government, slander, libel, etc.  And freedom of speech also is not just "to express an opinion," as in artistic works or mere entertainment....\n\nIt is wrong to think of people "abusing their rights":  if someone kills someone with a gun, that is not an abuse of the right to bear arms, that is murder.  The whole idea of "abuse of rights" is a sneaky linguistic ploy by people who would like to abridge our rights, especially for their own ends.\n\nThe kind of speech you refer to, when not actually a crime, is referred to in law as "obnoxious speech" and it is protected by the 1st amendment - neo-Nazi and KKK stuff and so on, for example, that contain obnoxious statements about race and lifestyle.\n\nWe can't really have freedom of speech unless all speech is free, even vile speech.\n\nThe Constitution does not give us rights.  Rather, it forbids the government from abridging or prohibiting our rights, which are seen as inherent in being human, as being part the nature of a human being.\n\nSo rather than to call on people not to upset society so that it won't take away our rights, we should be doing what it looks like we do: condemn obnoxious speech openly and vigorously while being vigilant against attempts to curtail our rights as human beings.
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.
150211
The right to exist, freedom of speech, and desire for happiness
986874
LOL, on many topics that we disagree I would say yes.  But this nation is based on even their freedom of speech.  It's always good to see and hear all sides on any issue.  That's what makes us the greatest nation in the world.
868651
First of all, there are rights and responsibilities. For every right you enjoy (freedom of speech) there are responsibilities (respecting other people's rights.) Think of it this way: everyone has the right to feel safe and to not be slandered. If you were the Prime Minister, and someone goes up to you and calls you an "idiotic fool", would that not anger you? Freedom of speech only lasts if you are respectful of the rights of others. You will be punished if you infringe on everyone else's rights, so I guess freedom is limited. \n\nIn the end, it depends on your definition of freedom. I think of freedom as more of a privilege. But if you see freedom as being able to do anything you wish, then to you there would be no true freedom.
889501
Short Answer:  Rights of Free Speech and Free Press
300036
Wow - \n\nYou must be mistaken.  I am totally shocked that a liberal, open minded, free thinking member would have anything to do with squelching your individual rights of free speech that were manifested in a forum specifically established to inquire about such matters.  \n\nParticularly because it was such a seemingly relevant question considering the happenings in the world today.\n\nI suppose I shall have to reconsider my opinion.  I wonder if I'm allowed to do that?
194367
Freedom of Speech is what I believe you are referring to.  Political Correctness was invented by universities that obviously have a lot of time on their hands.  Freedom of Speech is written into the Constitution of the United States and is and should be looked at with more forethought than what a bunch of busy bodies in and around a college campus thought was/is important.
63678
"Freedom of speech" from a legal point of view means that no law should be passed preventing any person from speaking out. Thus the prohibition against censorship. However, the law also recognizes that the right to free speech should be exercised responsibly. That is why if the words uttered are untrue and hurts the reputation of another, then the speaker may be sued for libel or slander. Or if the words spoken exhorts listeners to rise up in arms against duly constituted government, the speaker may be punished for sedition.
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.
94706
We have freedom of speech. We can say what we think but we also understand that others also have that right. If we reacted with violence every time we were offended, society would turn to chaos. With freedom comes the responsibility of respecting other peoples freedom.
270928
FREEDOM OF SPEECH\n\nFreedom of speech is one of the most misunderstood rights because Americans to not have the total freedom to say whatever they want. The classic example is yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater. You can say what you want, but there may be consequences.\n\nThe Dixie Chicks are a classic example, too. The bashed President Bush and his policies on foreign soil. They claimed they were just exercising their right to free speech. True, but millions of Americans and thousands of radio stations responded by boycotting their music. Again, you can say what you want, but you had better be prepared to accept the consequences.\n\nFREEDOM OF RELIGION\n\nThe most misunderstood right in the Bill of Rights. Most Americans today claim that the First Amendment builds a "wall of separation between church and state". This phrase, however, IS NOT in the Constitution. As a matter of fact, Thomas Jefferson first said it in an 1802 letter addressed to a church congregation in Connecticut. The letter was the subject of intense scrutiny by Jefferson, and he consulted a couple of New England politicians to assure that his words would not offend while still conveying his message: it was not the place of the Congress or the Executive to do anything that might be misconstrued as the establishment of religion. Doesn't quite sound like he meant religion should be stricken from government or the public ... just that the government should not force the establishment of a national religion much like King Henry VIII did.\n\nWant to see what the Founding Fathers REALLY intended? They intended the principle of Christianity - the very principle upon which this country was founded - to guide the country and her leaders. See http://www.eadshome.com/QuotesoftheFounders.htm .\n\nThe First Amendment was meant to protect religion from the government - NOT protect the government from religion.\n\nFREEDOM OF THE PRESS\n\nMost media outlets have lost focus on objective reporting. So many have their own agendas - be it conservative, moderate or liberal - that I do not have great faith in the accuracy of their reporting. The non-biased style of reporting has classically been this: Present one side of the story. Present the other side of the story. Let the reading public make up their own mind. Now, the media tries to influence the way you think, the way you vote.\n\nDo they have the freedom to do so? Absolutely. But I also have the freedom to pay them no mind because they have their own best interest at heart now - NOT mine and NOT yours.\n\nJust my two cents!  :-)
432054
The idea behind freedom of speech is that you can say anything you want as long as it doesn't cause the harm of others. You can't yell fire in a crowded movie theater, but you can speak out against you government or any other group. The problem is that people don't limit their actions to speech. Furthermore, our country is a lot better then pretty much any other and all you people who want to complain so much, just leave and you'll find out what it's like to be oppressed.
86943
Free speech has some limitations, like not screaming fire in a closed theatre. Thus, it is not unrestricted, and whenever it goes against the basic morals of the country it should be deemed as detrimental. In these times of electronic communications, free speech needs to be reviewed and more limits imposed.\n\nThere are some 'cons' to restricting it, if it is done by irresponsible people or Satanists. For example, the left is trying to make it impossible for Christian people to voice their faith. So having public prayer is restricted in some institutions. That is a huge 'con' on restricting free speech, since the people who want to push religion out of our lives are the same who would benefit from a decadence in our moral values: homosexuals, pedophiles, communists, etc.
321747
Freedom  of speech and Freedom of thought are two different things. People often want freedom of speech even when they have freedom of thought.\nFreedom of thought is a healthy thing which every one should need and Freedom of speech depends on tolerance of world. The world is not utopian enough to be tolerant to bear all the thrash being said.
1001124
Oh, I am wounded to the core.\n\nAre you familiar with a document that conservatives shredded and used for toilet paper called the Constitution?  Well, the First Amendment  to that document, which Bush is reported to have called "just a GD piece of paper" guarantees free speech as not only a value, but a right.\n\nIt is not an absolute freedom, of course, there are restrictions against its abuse, such as libel and defamation, obscenity, incitement to crime, and sedition.  Although they have been rejected by American courts, some arguments have been made that speech which is offensive whould also fall under restricted speech, such as using the phrase "sissy liberal talk."
841944
You're correct.  We accept free speech unless it offends us.  Take for instance the Michael Richards thing. Now the Laugh Factory is putting a ban on the word n*gger.  What happened to free speech?  Then again, that's a private business and he can run it the way he wants.   It's an interesting world, the same people that cry "free speech" are the same that would cry "censor" if the speech is not favorable to them.