Freedom of Speach

There are many different veiws of the freedom of speach and just how much freedom one should be granted under this particual catagory and when. The courts have come up with a lot of ways to differentiate between different cirumstances, shuch as "clear and present danger" (which was later even changed to clear and prabable danger, going too far I think), fighting words, and limitations on symbolic speach. The freedom of speach, in my opinion, is the most important freedom that we can have, because it covers the freedom of informational flow, and thus the control of ideas and of change.

My question to all of you is, under what circumstances do you believe it is NECESSARY to restrict this freedom—

I would say that it's necessary to restrict our freedom of speech if what we say is going to incite violence or hatred toward other living beings or if it's going to create undue panic upon a group of people (like for example, people should be punished for yelling, "FIRE!!!" when there isn't one, or yelling, "BOMB!!" in some crowded place, thus creating extreme panic. I'm not sure I understand what you mean when you talk about the clear and probable danger thing...where are you going with that? Sorry, it's late here, so my brain isn't in top form right now 🙂

speach......SPEACH!!!!!!

how the hell did you get into university—!!!

i'll forgive you your many errors...

Once the freedom of speech interfers with the right to respect/dignity of others then the person(s) is abusing their privilege. For example, i can say whatever I want until I start using hate speech to discriminate against others. Also, if one's speech instills fear/terror (ex: the KKK) then it is also abusing the freedom.

Sorry about the errors, I a bit dislexic...

PS: Cortica I got in with the help of a spell checker.