The Limits of Free Speech | Intellections

Показать описание

The First Amendment allows us to speak our mind and stand up for what we believe in. However, the limits on free speech are rooted in the principle that we’re not allowed to harm others to get what we want. That’s why we’re not allowed to use to speech for force, fraud, or defamation.

Рекомендации по теме

Комментарии

"Harm" is too subjective. People have and are bending the limitations of free speech in order to justify the denial of people's freedom of speech. If "harm" extends to things that might be "triggering", "sensitive" or "problematic" then I say let people "harm" others with their speech, as long as said speech isn't making direct threats or advocating violence directly.

Midironica

The definition of irony,
The entrance to the bbc in london, stands a statue of George Orwell,
Next to it is an orwell Quote : If liberty means anything at all,
It means the right to tell people what they dont want to hear.
Free speech will offend, but that is the price of freedom.

freespeechfreespeech

I have to disagree, the only real limit to freedom of speech is a direct call to violent action. It's not meant to protect peoples feelings.

nycheeseburger

"As long as you don't intentionally misrepresent the truth to people, you have the freedom to share whatever is on your mind" - Famous Last Words

rexshepard

'Freedom of Speech' does not guarantee that you will be immune to the effects of that speech. People can still boycott you, petition to get you taken off the airwaves, refuse to listen to you, etc. You can say it, but don't think that you're not going to have to deal with the repercussions.

willparkinson

To those who disagree with this video, I'm here to state facts. Just like this guy said, everyone has the right to voice their opinions and speak their minds, as long as they are not meant to offend anyone. However, even when you say something which is not meant to be offensive some people still get offended. Does that mean you don't have the right to say it? No, of course not! If what you say is not meant to be offensive then you're free to say it. There is a difference between intentionally saying something offensive and making someone FEEL offended. People might feel offended for no reason and it's not your fault. We all have different views on what's offensive and what's not, but if someone calls you ''stupid'' you know that there is no way it's not meant to be offensive. So yeah, no one has the right to say something which is really meant to be offensive. If you think it's right, sorry, but it's actually not. Again, I'm just stating facts.

anonymoustopsecret

That's funny I don't remember this part of the first amendment.

jacobford

You can't hurt someone physically with Speech.

gabestegmaier

"However, the limits on free speech are rooted in the principle that we’re not allowed to harm others to get what we want."

Oh, really? But then WHO gets to enforce Hate Speech laws? WHO decides what is Hate Speech or Free Speech? Big Central Collectivist Government with unlimited powers of course.

businesscat

Some funny people here. - It is NOT about getting offended. It is about protecting the individual rights, which at the same time are protected by all of the other laws. The right to Free Speech is NOT the only law in the land. There are many others, ans the limitations of Fredom of Speech reach as far as the other laws allow. You cannot, for example, lie under oath ans cite it as Freedom of Speech. Or you cannot disrupt peace in an airport by having fun and yelling that there is a threat and cite yours as Freedom of Speech. Your speech may have legal consequences. Of course you are free to say whatever; however, you are not free to choose the consequences.

FernandoVazquez-ronw

Can people also please learn that "freedom of speech" doesn't translate into "freedom from being criticized for saying stupid things", or "everyone has to always be super-nice to me because I have the right to say whatever I want"? A lot of people seem to get these mixed up.

XiaoYueMao

I take exception to this post's failure to differentiate between a constitutional prohibition and one that might arise from civil litigation. If you tell a falsehood, the matter is civil in that the other party can sue for defamation. The government has no business silencing someone because a bureaucrat thinks you are lying.

blangh

I love how both Pro-Free Speechers and Anti-Free Speechers (neither of which are specifically identifying themselves as such) view this video as bad, because they see the argument they want to hate in it, not what it actually says.

Human ability to be foolish never ceased to amaze.

sythersight

a wise man once said if we're going to have an argument whether we should still have the second amendment then why don't we just get rid of the 1st and the whole bill of right while we're at it and even suggesting such a thing is violations of their oath to serve and protect the Constitution at all cost!

sal

00:51 Completely incorrect. There is no restriction on "abuse" in free speech. You can verbally abuse whomever you please.

You can't knowingly tell a falsehood that damages their reputation, or call for violence against them. Insults are completely fair game, so long as they aren't repeated to the point of harassment.

Hurt feelings do not constitute harm.

TrueThanny