DEBATE: is it right for government to ever restrict free speech?

Question

I'm doing this as a debate at school next week and i need some points for and against as it's parlimentary debating!! :S HELP!!

Answer 1

Courts have historically held that there are certain cases where the government has the right, and the responsibility to restrict free speech.  For instance:

Profanity and obscenity

Defamation (slander and libel)

Threats of violence

Perjury

Company secrets

'Fighting words'  (i.e words that cause injury or tend to incite violence)

Sedition or Treason

Hate Speech (which has a specific legal definition)

Lies that can cause a crowd to panic (i.e. yelling 'fire' in a crowded theater)

Talking out of turn during a trial (contempt of court)

Talking about a case outside of court (sub judice)

Noise pollution!

These are all special cases.  Banning them does not really deprive people of their right to speak openly, in fact they are the exceptions that prove the rule.  They show that free speech can't work unless it's also -responsible- speech.

When I was a teenager there was a big protest at the University of California in Berkeley which ended up being called the 'free speech movement'  (1964).   It began with some students setting up a table in the quad to distribute political pamphlets.  The univ. administration told them they couldn't do that, and there were huge demonstrations by students protesting this action.  Finally the administration backed down and allowed it, admitting that free speech was important and students could not be deprived of it.

Two days later some idiot was walking around the quad with a big sign that contained only the f-word.  This sparked the controversy all over again and students ended up losing their free-speech rights after all.  It just goes to prove that rights come with responsibilities.

Answer 2

The government is trying hard to control the masses.

But Americans are smarter than bush and his puppeteers

Answer 3

there are some really good arguments for the government to limit free speech.

you have the right to do the right thing in my opinion.

you never have the right to do the wrong thing.

read some of the vile, hateful things spewed here on y!a(by both sides of every issue).  after doing that for a few minutes, you will begin to think that maybe it wouldn't be so bad.....

Answer 4

Yes. The government has the authority to restrict certain types of speech and expression when that speech or expression places others in eminent danger or crates and ultra-hazardous situation. For example, one may not advocate the killing of others, violence of any sort against others, assassination of the President or government officials, nor incite persons to riot. Additionally individuals may not commit acts of treason which includes giving aide and comfort to enemies of the State. It is true that the government has been woefully inept at prosecuting persons for these types of offense yet the government has the power to do so.

Answer 5

Constitution is in the way, 5th amendment for free speech.

It is  parallel to the belief to condemn communism and all American house-holds are filled with communists made products. We wrote patriot act too. So what is our interest- Dollar the mighty God.

Answer 6

Absolutely not. Americans have been given the right to free speech so they can keep the government in check. You'll notice that countries that don't have free speech generally have dictator type leaders. It's our DUTY to speak out when we see wrongs being committed.

Answer 7

It is NEVER right for the government to restrict freedom of speech. If we lose our right to speak out openly and honestly against our government or to stand up for a cause we believe in, we will lose our democracy because we will lose our ability to hold our elected officials accountable.

Answer 8

Yes, when that speech endangers the life of someone or the country as in the divulging of classified information, which could be used against a nation.

It is normal for any Nation to keep secret vital intelligence for several reasons, some good examples of this can be seen during WW2, our Submarines were finding that the Japanese Navy were setting their depth charges too shallow, unfortunately some Congressman leaked this out, as a result, 1 in 5 of our subs were sunk during the war.  Another example was how we cracked Japanese Naval Codes, this helped us to plan and win several battles, if that information was ever leaked, Japan could have simply changed the codes, almost overnight.

   If we were not allowed to keep secret who our spies were, then who would risk their lives to do that job for us?

  Also, if we allowed anybody to make a claim that a product did something that really didn't do, how many people would it endanger, for example, I create an elixir with a secret formula, of sugar, food coloring, cod liver oil and mint, now I advertise that it is all you need to beat cancer, and you can't trust medical docs, they are trying to suppress this secret elixir because it would put them out of business, don't you think the government not only has a right, but an obligation to come in and restrict me from making such a claim?

Answer 9

Cheeky Girl.

I do hope this isn't cheating. ;)

No, it's not really. It's called being CLEVER.

Wink wink.

Eyeyeyey. *Elbow*

I love you Micaaaaa. :D

Love From Heather x*x