{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
Edited by MyNameIsCharlie:
4/2/2013 8:01:43 PM
46
Should there be ANY limitations on Free Speech?
Look at the posts on [url=http://www.bungie.net/7_Homophobic-boy-yelling-at-churchgoers-egged-on-by-/en-us/Forum/Post?id=60131903]this thread[/url] and [url=http://www.bungie.net/7_N-Korea-should-blow-up-America/en-us/Forum/Post?id=60132900]this one[/url]
In it we see Off-Topic'ers voicing an opinion that what was said should be punishable. My favorite was for the call of a "Government created database" of when people say things anti-American. (lolreallykiki?)
So, there obviously are strong feelings on the matter. What are your thoughts?
...and feel free to look at everyone's post history to find instances when they said they are for total free speech, and then posted something contrary to that. Allow no hypocrisy in this thread.
English
#Offtopic
-
Started a new topic: What's your opinion of whistleblowing?(7 Replies))
-
4 RepliesFree speech is what it is. Free. In this country you can say what you want. What the first amendment DOESN'T do is protect you for what you say. If you say some stupid shit that annoys a lot of people the first amendment does not protect you from being attacked by them.
-
Oh god, that second thread. jesus -blam!-ing christ kika
-
Nope, as long as you harm no one else.
-
ALLL limitations possible must be made
-
[u]MAYBE[/u] certain kinds of hate speech. Teh puma wouldn't mind it if the WBC was kicked out of the US.
-
1 ReplyTrue freedom is the archnemesis of society, because true freedom is anarchy. There are limitations with [i]every[/i] kind of freedom.
-
Edited by Gruntzilla24: 4/3/2013 7:46:04 PMYes, threatening someone's life is (and should be) illegal. Also, I think an organized and established group should not have free speech. An example being Westboro.
-
Yes, take it away from westboro.
-
1 ReplyThere have always been limits on Free Speech since it was created. Anyone who thinks otherwise is delusional
-
Unless it gets in the way of another right.
-
I believe people are entitled to their beliefs, no matter how crazy, or bigoted they are, until their rights begin to constrict the rights of others. Even the right to insult the government when they are being stupid, which is almost always.
-
No. Unless there is like foul language or something. I'm pretty sure that's how it is now though.
-
1 Reply
-
I think the only imitations should be libel, slander, and just passing off lies as truth with the intent to deceive or harm in general, though that would also ban stuff like April Fool's pranks, so it could be reworded a bit. If you see someone saying something ignorant that you don't think they should be saying, then tell them otherwise and try to convince them to stop, instead of taking away their right to speak entirely.
-
As long as you aren't making active threats or discriminating any specific person or group of people, you should be fine.
-
Obviously.
-
Limitations if there is hate speech in person is how I'd do it. For instance: You can protest against Obama all you want if it's civilised, but if it's nothing more than a racist spout of lies and verbal abuse then I'd consider that a public misconduct. Now if it's on the internet, then do what you want. The Internet should not be ruled by anyone in my opinion.
-
There's an old saying my mother use to tell me when I got offended by what others said. "Sticks and stones may break my bones but SAY MOTHA-blam!-ING WHAT AGAIN! I DARE YOU SAY WHAT AGAIN -blam!-" Always worked out :)
-
1 Reply"I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it."
-
It's a fine line to say what is and isn't acceptable under free speech, very hard to say.
-
1 ReplyI think that exceptions should be made for situations where there is "clear and present danger" (like shouting "fire" in a crowded theater where there's no fire), and when there is a clear direct, proven need for restrictions. For example, I worked as an election judge last year. While I was at the polls working, I wasn't allowed to try to influence people, or talk about politics with voters at all. Candidates can't talk to people or electioneer within 100 feet of the entrance to the polling place, either. I think that those restrictions are reasonable.
-
Yes, in my opinion Freedom of Speech should include a freedom from the hate speech of others. People have a right to say what they want but if they're forcing other people to listen to it, and by doing so are causing those people distress or alarm, then they should be stopped. Basically if people are being obnoxious -blam!-s in public and upsetting others through the abuse/hate that they are spouting then the police should be able to move them on.
-
yes "fire!" in a crowded theater, inciting a riot etc. etc.
-
No fatties.
-
Vaders answer:
