Is freedom of expression under threat?
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.
164945
I believe that any organiztion or party threatening others or having their purpose based in hatred - Is the opposite of free speech. We are not "free" to harm others or to threaten harm to others. Threats and violence are counter \nfreedom activities. KKK is a disgrace to humanity. May be that's why they hide under sheets. I say put them all on an island and let them do each other in. Al Qaida and company too. Violence begets violence. Non productive and ignorant.
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.
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.
81730
Europe says it is, but practically it is not. UK has a strong censorship, so do Austria and Germany. In these countries many journalists have been sent to jail for things they've said or published (Irving is only the latest issue). Italy and Belgium too have laws that frown upon certain subject that can be released in the media, while in other countries (although there's no law) various coercions are imposed on the press by means of media trusts (media trusts owners are subjected to heavy pressure to allow or dissalow publication of articles on certain issues).\nThe US goes against free speech too (the number of jailed press members imprisoned for articles related to the US invasion of Iraq or US violations of human right isn't exately small).
356738
Global? Are you serious? Of course not. There are countries where freedom of speech is a joke.\n\nAh, well if you are specifically talking about Yahoo, then no, there is not freedom of speech, there are rules and terms of use. I have no problem with them. There is no need to do any of the things that go against the rules of the site. There is a mature and respectful way to answer any question on this site while being both honest and within the guidelines of the site. Some have the ability to do that, and some don't.
737948
No it is not, but the right to demonstrate is, so the find a way to go around the reason to demonstrate in the first place.\nFor example you cant have any access to legal  Nazi-sites in the Web with a German IP.
206575
Well, Yahoo! Answers is a public forum so I suppose if you make threatening statements to other people or government officials, use it to make slanderous comments to someone or use it to search for things that are illegal and then attain those illegal thigs (i.e. copyrighted material or bomb-making materials) then yes you could get into legal trouble.
858082
Freedom of speech has never existed, it was just a falacy for us to feel secure in this society, just an oxymoron though, like human rights.
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.
277002
Absolutely.  It's freedom of speech.  Its the first ammendment of the constitution.(Bill of rights section)
674187
too outspoken. we do have freedom of speech
1174482
Does it really matter? It's a way of expressing a strong feeling, purely symbolic, and should be allowed for the freedom of speech.
638339
It's kind of a false dilemma.  Security and freedom can coexist, it just makes it a little harder.  I personally would rather be able to read, write, think, or say whatever I want without sanction than feel secure under surveillance.
741625
I sure hope not.  There should never be any governmental interference in speech that is offensive or hate filled.  Only when there is clear evidence that the speech is a direct threat towards an individual should the law be able to take any action. If people could be jailed for offending, we all would be wearing prison uniforms.
860560
yes, those who take the freedom of speech to its nebulous limits certainly do so to the point of abuse, regardless of the vitriol that harms otherwise defenseless individuals or classes.\n\nthis is not an experience unique to the US; every free and democratic country that takes pride in its constitutional freedoms, speech foremost among them, guards the same, albeit with varying degrees of zealousness. often, its actual exercise and limitations are determined by national priorities, political exigencies, or its well defined criminal statutes and established jurisprudence.\n\nmost democratic societies that enshrine free speech in their constitution adopt safeguards of varying degrees of effectiveness at combatting just such abuse. more often than not, the outermost limits are determined by whether the exercise of free speech crosses the line that determines the commission of an offense / crime defined by the country's criminal statutes, e.g., what one country defines as amounting to libel, oral defamation, grave slander, subversion or inciting to sedition may be radically different from another's. it's the country's criminal statutes and established jurisprudence that determine whether that line has been crossed for the authorities to in the interest of the majority, or for the offended to sue for redress and/or compensation for damages.\n\nother jurisdictions (countries) may recognize and enshrine the freedom in its fundamental law but justify the severe limitation on its exercise with such catch-all phrases as "national security", political realities and/or economic exigencies. in point of fact and by way of example, the philippine dictator marcos silenced the political opposition by criminalizing "rumour-mongering".\n\nin jurisdictions with particularly fragile economies, the mere dissemination of unverified information that may affect, or have, in fact, adversely affected the national economy, has been considered a crime of grave national proportions, amounting to "economic sabotage".\n\nwhile it is  a great reality that we have a freedom of speech that we have every right to defend zealously, it is, likewise, a tragic reality that we can only rely on ourselves, in the very exercise of the same freedom, to voice our faith and demand its reasonable curtailment once that freedom is abused to the unfair disadvantage of any one else. after all, if we don't safeguard the freedom and fight its abuse against others, who will defend it for us when we are at the receiving end of its abuse?\n\nit really all depends on how a country's constitutional institutions value this freedom, weighing the consequences of its free exercise as against the "threat" of its dilution or endangerment by the very threat or act of prosecuting every perceived abuse or violation, regardless of its lightness or gravity.\n\nmuch also depends on how zealously the citizens safeguard evey nuance in the exercise of that freedom. probably, the US citizenry and its institutions have so zealously guarded this very right precisely because it lies at the bedrock of its constitutional foundation; a 200+ year history founded on individuality and freedom is not something to take lightly. it is a source of rightful national pride...until its abuse in a single instance so focuses national consciousness and awareness of its potential for equal national shame...because its unfettered abuse has, in fact, resulted in patently wrongful damage to honor, life and limb, national security or the comon weal.\n\nwe can only pray that we safeguard the freedom enough so that it may not be abused at our expense. a painful paradox, but a sacrifice worth taking.
66256
Its a social experiment thats still being worked out.  There are ongoing problems, like when does freedom of speech become libel?\n\nIts not perfect, but works reasonably well in the western world compared to other systems.  There is accountability.  There is representation. We can't be held without charge, we can't be convicted without trial.