Should government infringe on freedom of speech?

U can answer it or just give me some links that can give me info about the topic.:)


By the way I'm on the pro side.

Update 2:

What I mean is that freedom of speech should me infringed. :)

6 Answers

  • 1 decade ago
    Favorite Answer

    Freedom of speech has never been an absolute; practically none of the Bill of Rights is an absolute right that can never be infringed upon.

    You cannot falsely yell "fire" in a crowded theater because it would cause a danger to the public. If you tells lies about people, you can be sued for slander or libel. You can't incite a riot. You can't hand out government-classified information. There are many restrictions on free speech, and most deal with when one person uses speech to injure or endanger another person or group of people, and I agree with these restrictions as necessary in our society. However, if you are trying to argue that people should not be able to debate ideas or talk about certain subjects (i.e. in some European nations it is a crime to deny the Holocaust or praise Hitler), then I can't think of any reasonable argument to support your argument.

    The restrictions on freedom of speech that I mentioned above (i.e. libel, slander, public endangerment) relate to most state constitutions, which include a freedom of speech right, but also state that a person is to be held responsible for the effects of his speech.

  • 1 decade ago

    You are a "Destroyer of the Constitution" of the United States. This is treason to me. I thoroughly disagree with you.

    Just recently a bill called HR 1913 passed by the Democrats set higher value on some lives over others and this is unconstitutional. This bill is for a privileged class based on sexual orientation. It would not let military veterans be included so it is unconstitutional with or without including the vets.

    I've been a juror at many trials both civil and criminal and we don't have enough jurors to set on these privileged cases. Congress keeps passing these stupid laws with no way to enforce them. Congress needs to back off and start listening to the States or the States will start making them listen.

    I have never seen a Hate Crime that was not prosecuted to the fullness of the law and the sentence was great. Basically all crimes are hate crimes. HR 1913 should have been called the sexual bill.

  • Mutt
    Lv 7
    1 decade ago

    "By the way I'm on the pro side." - Do you mean "pro-infringe on freedom of speech" or "pro-freedom of speech"?

    No, the government should not infringe on your freedom of speech. If you are not allowed to express your opinions, then the government is no longer "for the people" but is then for itself.

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    It already does. Believe me, get out there and start saying what you want publicly and see (if a crowd develops) how far you get and what trouble you get into.

    You're free to say what you want in the confines of 4 walls.

    We are not as 'free' as we've been propogandized. We all mostly do what we are told.

  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • fdm215
    Lv 7
    1 decade ago

    No. That is a guaranteed right.

  • V
    Lv 6
    1 decade ago

    No that would be unconstitutional.

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.