Who killed Mr. Boddy in the study and with what?: the great debate topic™®

[NumberOneTuxedo]

Absolutely not.

The government shall not restrict the use of our freedom of speech.


Page loss. :(

[Ad Bot]

[Niff]

my page was lost

those darn capitalists are probaby behind this

[Foxscotch]

Law should only decide things when someone has harmed someone else.

a lot of your opinions seem to rely on you not knowing how real things work

[Ipquarx]

I believe there are some remote instances where complete freedom of speech is counter-productive. Like in primary/high school. A kool kids klub club or westboro baptist church club in that kind of environment, I think any sane person would agree wouldn't exactly be appropriate.

[Ragequit]

What about ISIL going around preaching their extremism and radicalising minors?

if you've been killing people your rights are pretty much gone at that point

[The Resonte!]

I believe there are some remote instances where complete freedom of speech is counter-productive. Like in primary/high school. A kool kids klub club or westboro baptist church club in that kind of environment, I think any sane person would agree wouldn't exactly be appropriate.

luckily freedom of speech can also be used to badmouth them

[sir dooble]

if you've been killing people your rights are pretty much gone at that point

The people who preach and radicalise aren't necessarily the ones who are doing the killing.
Some haven't even been to the Middle East, they're radicalised westerners radicalising westerners.

It gets a bit tricky if you say you deserve no rights if you support terrorist groups like CIA, although I would say you don't deserve freedom of speech in regards to that subject matter.

[Plethora]

Repressing free speech only closes an outlet for discontent, which will make its way out anyway.  Better to allow it and let discontents, radicals, and raving madmen compete in the free market of ideas than force discontent through increasingly dangerous and violent outlets as legitimate ones are closed.

[shitlord]

the day the government restricts freedom of speech is the day the government realizes its corrupted and has to control the people to keep them from overthrowing it or showing the corruption

[Harm94]

I believe there are some remote instances where complete freedom of speech is counter-productive. Like in primary/high school. A kool kids klub club or westboro baptist church club in that kind of environment, I think any sane person would agree wouldn't exactly be appropriate.

they can take their backwards hatred and shove it up their ass
^
my proper use of the 1st amendment
I believe it's right to suppress information under certain circumstances. There was a case where there was a woman who was attacked by her husband and was hiding in her basement while the husband was wandering out with a gun. The police knew where she was, and they media kept getting nosey and wouldn't forget off until the event was over. Had the police caved in and said the woman was in the basement, the husband who had access to the TV would have found her and killed her before the police could have saved her. So the police lied to the news and said she was in the attic.

Like wise I think keeping news of school shootings restricted to the local area in which it occurred. There are too many shootings these days and almost all them are inspired by drama and people who want to be immortalized for 5 minutes as a murderer.

[Nonnel]

So you don't think government officials should represent the morals of the majority of their constituents?

Not necessarily. The government should not have a position on morals which are largely up for debate, especially if it causes the minority to lose their personal rights.

a lot of your opinions seem to rely on you not knowing how real things work

I'll ask again, what law do you find necessary that is not stopping one party from harming another?

[sir dooble]

I'll ask again, what law do you find necessary that is not stopping one party from harming another?

Under what scope are you using the word 'harm'?

Because laws regarding libel, theft, motor insurance and property damage are necessary, but those actions don't physically harm a person.

[Freedom Bringer]

nO. If you do dat ima whoop yo ass

[Nonnel]

Under what scope are you using the word 'harm'?

Because laws regarding libel, theft, motor insurance and property damage are necessary, but those actions don't physically harm a person.

anything that negatively affects someone in any way but emotionally
this includes both physical and financial harm

[sir dooble]

anything that negatively affects someone in any way but emotionally
this includes both physical and financial harm

So then those whose speech compels others to physically harm themselves or others? Should laws not cover that?