Even with freedom of speech, should certain groups be banend from speaking?
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.
91442
I disagree. There should be freedom of expression in all forms, but with responsibility to the society attached to it.
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.
745002
get rid of freedom of speech
804667
There is a difference between free speech and inciting a riot.  Free speech also doesn't give one a license to say whatever, whenever.  There still is a responsibility for the words one speaks.  Don't know what promted this question, but I don't have any issue with yahoo's policies governing posting on the site.
218348
No. Having a free society requires us to occasionally put up with the fact that other people who have repugnant opinions are just as entitled to speak their mind as we are. What we don't have to do is take the repugnance itself lying down. It's fine to challenege someone's "stupid racist remarks" whenever they're made, whether "on TV" or elsewhere, and we/you should whenever we see it. Free speech is not the problem, letting racists go unchallenged is.
418754
Let the freedom of expression remain available to the whole world.\nNo exceptions !!
1137551
They have the right to say what they want. But everyone else has the right to think they are morons and not listen to them anymore. Don't play with fire if you don't want to get burned.
1044517
No. This country was founded on free speech. If we weren't allowed to speak out, politicians would get away with much more than they do. Without free speech, Nixon would never have been exposed.
1418
No, at least not in the US. It goes with the whole "freedom of speech" thing. The first amendment says:\n\n"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."\n\nIf someone is telling you how to speak in your own backyard, your first amendment rights are being violated.\n\nHowever if you're cursing loud enough to disturb your neighbours, then you're infringing on their rights, in which case you can be charged with a disorderly persons offence.
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.
517249
No.Everyone has freedom of speech in india. He did not hurt anyone. So it should be allowed.
978037
Yes, freedom of speech protects it, as long as it's not on private property.  And the flip side of it is it also protects those wack jobs who hold up horrible signs blaming the soldiers for their own deaths (you know, the "god hates fags" idiots).
674187
too outspoken. we do have freedom of speech
743384
I refuse to believe that there is anything 'bad' about Freedom of Speech and Expression... \n\nafter all, if someone decides to burn a flag as expression, I might have to pop him in the face with a 2 x 4 as an expression! \n\nIn all reality, freedom to speech and expression should be taken for what it is. Just because someone is speaking or 'expressing' themselves, doesn't mean you have to listen or watch. I think that is one area where the line gets blurry for some. One has any right to say or do (so long as it doesn't cause harm to a person or persons, another blurry area), but no one should be forced to listen or watch.
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.
324335
Well, now days anything can happen if you say the wrong thing and offend somebody. But I agree. Where did the rights of freedom of speech go? And I always wondered why we have to allow blacks into our colleges, but they can dissallow whites into theirs. Isn't that racist? So it's okay for them to be but we can't? Other nationalities have different cultures, therefore we get into different negative situations. If we have to allow for their differences,they shouldn't take advantage of it. They should in the first place realize they came from their country to the United States. They need to follow our country rules, they are not here to start their own country in the middle of ours.