Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

Current Events & Hot Topics Current Events & Hot Topics

Freedom of Speech

Posted by on Apr. 1, 2014 at 11:58 AM
  • 86 Replies
1 mom liked this

 

Poll

Question: Should there be limits on free speech

Options:

Always

Never

Sometimes (please explain under what circumstances)

Other (because every poll needs an "other" option -- again, please explain)


Only group members can vote in this poll.

Total Votes: 56

View Results

I was listening to part of a discussion on BBC this morning about freedom of speech.  One guy was arguing that even speech that does not incite violence, but is considered hateful, should be banned.  A woman was arguing against him that we can not go down that route -- we can not ban speech just because we don't like what the person has to say.  So I thought that was a nice light topic for a Tuesday in spring on CM:P  What think you?  Should limits be placed on free speech?  Is there a line?  If so, where is it and what should be done to those who cross it?


by on Apr. 1, 2014 at 11:58 AM
Add your quick reply below:
You must be a member to reply to this post.
Replies (1-10):
Miller0305
by Member on Apr. 1, 2014 at 12:00 PM
6 moms liked this
Hateful speech is subjective. The last thing we need is the speech police. What if I say I hate Mc Donald's, their food sucks and the government says that's hate speech because it's negative. That would make opinions illegal. No. Way.
Posted on CafeMom Mobile
swishyskirt
by on Apr. 1, 2014 at 12:06 PM
1 mom liked this

I put sometimes because a person charging into an establishment shouting hateful things is wrong.  Example: Westboro Baptist church picketing hateful things at funerals.  That should be a crime.  But if they went to march around city hall or any other place where governments discuss laws, that is an appropriate place to shout your opinions.

MsDenuninani
by Silver Member on Apr. 1, 2014 at 12:07 PM
15 moms liked this

I'm for time, place, and manner restrictions.  Things like having to obtain a permit to hold a rally, and for nuisance laws that prevent someone from yelling "Ban Nuclear Weapons" outside my house at 4 a.m.

But when it comes to things like hate speech, or burning the flag, it starts to feel less like you're policing speech and more like you're policing thoughts.  People are allowed to voice their opinions, even when they are hateful. I also believe that airing these things out in the sunlight is the best way to get rid of them altogether. I, personally, prefer knowing what people think.

JakeandEmmasMom
by Platinum Member on Apr. 1, 2014 at 12:12 PM
Love this. I totally agree.

Quoting MsDenuninani:

I'm for time, place, and manner restrictions.  Things like having to obtain a permit to hold a rally, and for nuisance laws that prevent someone from yelling "Ban Nuclear Weapons" outside my house at 4 a.m.


But when it comes to things like hate speech, or burning the flag, it starts to feel less like you're policing speech and more like you're policing thoughts.  People are allowed to voice their opinions, even when they are hateful. I also believe that airing these things out in the sunlight is the best way to get rid of them altogether. I, personally, prefer knowing what people think.

Posted on CafeMom Mobile
bluerooffarm
by Bronze Member on Apr. 1, 2014 at 12:13 PM
4 moms liked this

I said sometimes, but really only for safety issues and issues of misinformation.  Slander should be illegal (and Libel) and it should be illegal to yell fire in a crowded theatre if there isn't a fire.  But other than (provable) lies that damage the reputations of others and safety issues... I would prefer to know what the loony is thinking instead of being in the dark and possibly supporting their hate.  KWIM?

billsfan1104
by Jules on Apr. 1, 2014 at 12:19 PM
2 moms liked this

 I put sometimes, because I believe that speech that incites violence, like a riot, murder, assault etc etc, should be illegal.

 

PPCLC
by Bronze Member on Apr. 1, 2014 at 12:21 PM
1 mom liked this

While it would be nice to see those who cite their hate as falling under "Freedom of Speech" simply using basic common sense and realizing that there are places and times for letting the world know what type of moron they sincerely are, I would hate to see them lose the right to state how they feel..........regardless if I agree with them or not.

I can and will continue to ignore them which is within MY rights, as well.

stringtheory
by Gold Member on Apr. 1, 2014 at 12:23 PM
5 moms liked this
I voted never, but agree with time and place restrictions that are reasonable (fire in a crowded theatre stuff...unless there is a fire...). Inciting violence even pushes it, in my opinion - the video about Muhammad comes to mind. Making people so angry that they get violent is NOT inciting violence.
lga1965
by on Apr. 1, 2014 at 12:46 PM

 

Quoting bluerooffarm:

I said sometimes, but really only for safety issues and issues of misinformation.  Slander should be illegal (and Libel) and it should be illegal to yell fire in a crowded theatre if there isn't a fire.  But other than (provable) lies that damage the reputations of others and safety issues... I would prefer to know what the loony is thinking instead of being in the dark and possibly supporting their hate.  KWIM?

 Good points.

 I agree that we should be able to know instead of being kept in the dark.

I would add that we should be free to react to others' free speech. If someone is clearly hateful or trying to convince people of something that is dishonest or libelous that we should be able to speak out, using  OUR freedom of speech to object to and to counteract anything harmful or dishonest.

Momniscient
by Ruby Member on Apr. 1, 2014 at 12:51 PM

Canada has hate speech law and they haven't been engulfed in the flames of the thought police.

America has a very specific mindset when it comes to our 'freedoms' so I'm not sure what the context of the BBC discussion was. Were these people American?

Not everything is a slippery slope. There are ways to invoke hate speech legislation that will not lead to 'thought police.' I don't think there is anything wrong with Canada's provisions and they have strictures in place where a person can prove they aren't being hateful. I don't see anything wrong with telling the WBC "okay, you had the freedom to express your opinion but now you have to prove in a lawful manner why you aren't spreading hate propoganda."

THAT would be interesting. And if they couldn't prove it then they just wouldn't be lawfully allowed to spread their... hate.


America isn't set on this kind of foundation though. Our national ideology is a slippery slope of its own in a sense. It kind of dichotomizes these kinds of issues (Freedom of Speech, Gun Ownership are two big ones) and makes meaningful reform hard to do.

Add your quick reply below:
You must be a member to reply to this post.
Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)