what are the limits of free speech?

What speech do you think should be banned in public or private?

Come on all you freedom lovers. Where do you want the line drawn?

 

Being heard.

Everyone has a right to free speech, but no has a right to be heard.

I've yet to hear or read anything that I would ban.

 

The same as the limit for any other freedom - the point it does harm.

Obviously the complicated (dare say impossible) bit is agreeing what is actually harmful and implementing the principle in specific cases within that wide and fuzzy grey area.

 

No limit, but with allowances for slander and libel. Child porn, IMHO, is not related to free speech, but to evidence of a crime.

 

There are no limits. But there are consequences for everything you say.

 

There should be no limit on speech.

Consequences of exercising that limitless ability abound.

- - - Updated - - -

You beat me to it.

 

Cheers!

 

There should be no limits on free speech. If someone doesnt like what you say ------- tough bounce.

- - - Updated - - -

If you put limits on free speech, it allows others to control you.

 

If I yell "FIRE!" or "I HAVE A GUN!" at an airport, obviously my right to say whatever the hell I want should be infringed.

But America is much better than most of the world when it comes to free speech. Even in Canada and many European countries, "hate speech" is considered a jailable offense whereas in America all it does is get you called a redneck. None of us can complain, we have it pretty damn good here in America.

 

I'm not a free speech lover. I want to draw the line at the intersection of free speech and incitement.

 

Who are the people that set the limits, and who elected them?????

 

Agreed. Incitement infringes on the right's of others. Any speech that infringes on my right should be curtailed. Your speech should be free up to that point. If you threaten to kill me knowing full well you do not intend to do so, you have still caused me grief and discomfort and this should obviously be made illegal.

 

Out of curiosity, what don't you like about free speech? Especially since you exercise free speech on a political forum.

- - - Updated - - -

In the U.S., it's usually the SCOTUS and they are not elected.

 

Or a leftist progressive

 

Hard to tell if you are being sarcastic or serious.

 

I'm being serious. You are not legally allowed to threaten to kill anyone in this country. I'm having a hard time telling if you're being serious, as this is common knowledge and common sense. Why should you get the right to ruin someone's day by walking up to them and threatening to cause harm to them? They don't know if you are intending to carry out this threat.

 

I haven't threatened to kill anyone, I haven't tried to incite the overthrow of this county, I haven't tried to incite secession. You shouldn't be 'free' to do those things. Or, you shouldn't be able to do those things and remain free.

 

Causing someone grief or discomfort should be illegal? I don't think so.

 

I don't think any private discussions ought to be made public if the people do not wish it to be.

As for public, that is hard for me to answer; on one hand I think people ought to speak their mind; however if used to incite anger, maybe that is not a good idea. Things can get out of hand; I also believe there should be a clear definition of free speech; for instance here in Portland Maine we have people who beg for money. They all know one another, and early one morning when I had to go somewhere I saw a very large group of them all together walking from one area and heading to their "designated" meridian strips. They also have "hours" to stand there and then another comes to take their place. If you drive through Portland Maine you will see them at almost ALL meridians. The Portland Police banned that a while back on the idea that it is dangerous to be standing there all day, that a car could hurt them if they slipped off that thin strip of meridian...or perhaps a car accident would hurt them because they were so close. I agree with that. But then a liberal judge changed it on the point of free speech; and they are able to stay on all the meridians again. I never give them money; most of them have rather decent clothing, good brands, and many smoke cigarettes which are pricey!

 

It was not the part about death threats, it was "Incitement infringes on the right's of others. Any speech that infringes on my right should be curtailed", that I was questioning. What rights of yours are being infringed by incitement for any other form of free speech?

 

Terroristic threats, defamation, perjury, fraud.. In the case of defamation, which is not criminal, you have to sue for damages but that covers most of what I can think of for now.

 

Harassment is illegal. Speech that indicates a desire to cause harm or suffering to someone is considered, by law, "harassment." You have infringed on my right not to be harassed.

 

ALL OF YOUR INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS end at the tip of another individual's nose. It's so incredibly simple a construct, I'm eternally amazed how many have trouble with it. actually, not really...not in an age where the notion of "positive rights" and "collective rights" and "the greater good" have been incrementally conditioned into the American psyche.

 

That's not very specific. It's not clear how these "consequences" would come about.

 

The problem is what constitutes harassment? Did Charlie Hebdo harass Muslims with its drawings of Mohammed? Does saying that Scientology is a fake religion constitute harassment? Where is harassment?