Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

Short of causing death, there should be no limit on free speech at all. Even the most widely held views are just opinions if you look at them. The law should not interfere with the opinions of American citizens. Since in the end, it could be the person you thought was crazy that is right in the end.

At 6/23/08 07:42 PM, Lindione wrote: Short of causing death, there should be no limit on free speech at all. Even the most widely held views are just opinions if you look at them. The law should not interfere with the opinions of American citizens. Since in the end, it could be the person you thought was crazy that is right in the end.

What about this. A person is following you yelling insults and death threats and does not stop. They never go on your property and never touch your and take out a weapon. Are they just using free speech?

At 6/24/08 05:45 PM, aninjaman wrote:

At 6/23/08 07:42 PM, Lindione wrote: Short of causing death, there should be no limit on free speech at all. Even the most widely held views are just opinions if you look at them. The law should not interfere with the opinions of American citizens. Since in the end, it could be the person you thought was crazy that is right in the end.

What about this. A person is following you yelling insults and death threats and does not stop. They never go on your property and never touch your and take out a weapon. Are they just using free speech?

Harassment is complicated. Harassment must be clearly defined. Otherwise, it could become an excuse for censorship.

I say, unless you say something like "I'm going to kill so-and so," or "Go out and kill so-and-so," you should be able to say whatever you want, with a few reasonable exceptions. Like, you know, you probably shouldn't yell "Fire!" in a crowded theatre.

I believe all speach that does not directly threaten the safety or welfare of another human being should be allowed.

"Hey, Hitman, heres 50 bucks, go kill my wife" directly threatens someones life.

"Death to America, Al Quida be praised" doesn't directly threaten anyones life, and should be allowed."

"Someone should shoot George Bush" is ok, if not given in a way that you would know would lead to someone acting out on it.

"I'm going to shoot George Bush on April 21, 2008" shouldn't be illegal itself either, but should be enough to convict someone of conspiracy to commit murder.

At 6/23/08 02:35 PM, hereforrock wrote: The limit? Don't say 'fuck' in front of little children or their mothers.

Yes - that's the right of the parent who's idea of childcare is to bawl abuse and/or threaten their kids at the mildest indescrecion that undermines their supposed "authority."

I love living in Croydon...

If we made a limit for freedom of speech, it wouldn't be FREEDOM of speech.

At 6/22/08 04:34 PM, Memorize wrote:

I'd ban it for the simple fact that a group of packed people shouldn't be lighting things on fire...

Yeah. I mean, I tend to notice flag burners do it, out in the open, and usually on stages and such things. And I always think "isn't there some fire code about that shit?"

At 6/22/08 05:10 PM, aninjaman wrote:

At 6/22/08 04:42 PM, The-evil-bucket wrote: If you meet with four other people in a basement every night and work on your elaborate scheme to hijack a armored car and kill the driver, that's illegal, conspiring to commit murder.

Conspiring to kill and free speech are different.

That's exactly what I said.

Freedom of speech is being able to speak freely without censorship. So I guess it would be wrong to say "I am going to kill the president", so yes that would be taking it toooo far. So no harmful words must be aboliged.

(Censorship is the suppression of speech or deletion of communicative material which may be considered objectionable, harmful or sensitive, as determined by a censor).

At 6/25/08 12:22 PM, PowerHell wrote: If we made a limit for freedom of speech, it wouldn't be FREEDOM of speech.

Thank you! Someone besides me gets it!

Ok think about it this way. If we want too have the admendments to mean what they ment when they were made.When freedom of speech was made, we could own slaves. And we could say that shit about the slaves or the jews and so and so. But now that the civil war has ended the slaves are free and they are considered equel people so now we can't say that stuff about them.

At 6/26/08 04:38 PM, streetbob wrote: Ok think about it this way. If we want too have the admendments to mean what they ment when they were made.When freedom of speech was made, we could own slaves. And we could say that shit about the slaves or the jews and so and so. But now that the civil war has ended the slaves are free and they are considered equel people so now we can't say that stuff about them.

Your talking about racial slurs. Racial slurs are harassment and harassment is clearly defined so it doesnt hold back freedom of speech. Also you can still say offosive things about blacks and jews. You wont be aressted but everyone will hate you and you will probably lose your job if you say it at work.