Are we taking free speech liberties too far?
831871
I believe so, but it is their rights. Ethics and morals are being overshadowed by ego's and opinions. It is sad really as upon my return I was scorned by several people. I wish the media would just stay the hell out. All they print is garbage and half stories and it is making the war that much more difficult.
85349
Perhaps because they see it as if the person calling them names is not respecting their position of authority.  However, at the same time, if you are not acting violent or as if you  are going to cause them harm, I still think that we as citizens have Freedom of speech to express our opinions.
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.
661918
Yes, it IS wonderful that we have the freedom of speech in this Great Country of ours!\n\nI was in the Marines in the 70s, ready to defend the rights of this wonderful Country, and each Citizen, so we would keep that right. \n\nFreedom is a wonderful thing, and it doesnt come cheap. Its paid for by the blood, sweat and tears of a Nation, and its Citizens to keep it that way.\n\nJust my opinion...\n\nJesse
819691
I am a conservative Republican and I absolutely believe that we have a First Amendment Right to burn the U.S. Flag.  "I may not agree with a word that you are saying, I but I would defend, to the death, your right to say it."    No law abridging "freedom of speech".  First you have to ask what "speech" is.  If you think that speech only means "the spoken and written word", then fine, that's it.  The real question becomes, how far should the government be able to go to control your message coming across?  Hey, the internet and this Board aren't mentioned.  What is stopping the Government from shutting this site down.  Typing this stupid debate is not "speech" right?  P.S. chicks are allowed to dance nude BECAUSE of the liberal interpretation of "free speech", so don't rock the boat!
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.
689380
No, because that's taking away free speech. It's the same as telling people they cannot write or publish books....
140429
it will only take away our freedom of speech and freedom of expression if we allow it to.  There should be and cannot be EXTERNAL standards placed upon our ability to preserve our rights as free Americans to express ourselves --> even if the 'offended' party disagrees with that.\n\nThere is definitely another reason for this sudden outbreak of violence.  The cartoon is FIVE MONTHS OLD.
889501
Short Answer:  Rights of Free Speech and Free Press
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.
1172686
They have the right to free speech!\n\nBut they shouldn't be surprised when we exercise our rights not to buy there crap....
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.
468731
Free speech is a right. It has limits. You cannot threaten people. But if you believe they are wrong or sinning, they do not have a right to not be offended, as you are neither threatening them or harming them in any way.\n\nYou cannot punish peoples' thoughts and still be a free nation. \n\nYou have no right to deny others' speech merely because you don't like it. It is not harassment. You are equally free to ignore them or refute them. But if you curtail their rights by bringing government force against them, we've all lost.\n\nThat is a path that leads to oppression of all people.
869510
When you begin telling people that certain legal activities cannot take place that is deprivation of personal liberties.  When you decide any religion is offensive, it is a violation of the United States Constitution...When you take away the right to own property through Imminent Domain it is an infringement on personal property rights that are pillars of democracy  that violate the United States Constitution.  You cannot shout Fire in an occupied building and expect for it to be considered Free Speech or insult people different than yourself because of race or gender, there are limits.....Becoming too politically correct, being the thought and food police under the guise of liberty is really a ruse to infringe upon individual liberty one by one until your government has become socialist/communist.  That is never a good thing.
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.
1043197
There is no such thing as free speech. Freedom is an illusion.
111405
Let's not be naive, what is right or legal will not stop those with power from learning what they want to know. Our technological advances in the field of communications have presented an irresistible opportunity for those with power to abuse our rights. Our only hope for the future is that these powers are somewhat benevolent torward us. The only place you can know,... really know, that you have privacy, is the thoughts in your head.