In your opinion, should Freedom of Speech in the US be uncompromising and absolute, much as it is today? Or should there be fast, hard limits on it?
In the same way that you cannot go into a crowded theater and yell "fire", isn't hate speech similarly endangering to the safety and health of others?
I'm aware that putting limits on Freedom of Speech can be said to be a slippery slope, and I'm certainly all for protecting my civil liberties. But I'm not happy with Freedom of Speech encompassing Freedom of Hate.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
I'll forever adhere to the "I may not like what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it" tenet.
Unfortunately, in the Age of Me (now) we've as a society lost much of our sense of responsibility and accountability to the human community as a whole, an unfortunate state that I believe is exacerbated by teh interwebs. Free speech and the dwindling of said responsibility and accountability makes for a dangerous combination. If people (at least here in the US - I don't know how much of an issues this is abroad) don't learn to balance these two factors, we may well find ourselves in a situation where our opinions on the matter matter very little. The government never seems to have trouble legislating such things when they get out of hand. For better or for worse.
I absolutely do not agree that my government should dictate what is and what is not "hate" speech.
A slippery slope that has frightening consequences. Just remember that the road to hell is paved with good intentions.
Racist, sexist, fundamentalist bastards should always be allowed to speak their minds. That's the best way to know exactly who the racist, sexist, fundamentalist bastards are...
Seriously, if you don't have free speech for ideas you don't agree with, you don't have free speech.
Post a Comment