Quote:
Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction
Just to play devil's advocate, why shouldn't there be limits on free speech?
Ever since humans started banding together into communities, whether it be tribes, towns, nations and countries; there is an intrinsic social contract where you don't do things that are detrimental to the good of the community. These contracts have over time, manifested into laws (you don't kill and steal because it goes against the common goals of survival and prosperity, not because Satan will torture you if you do). I think there is a pretty strong argument that some types of speech can have a huge negative impact on societies. At the same time, full censorship is detrimental as well. Somewhere there has to be a happy medium.
|
Democratic societies should aim to be resilient enough to have an immune system against insidious speech...that being said the limit is the 'yelling Fire in a theatre' or direct slander as they deeper impact than offending someone.
Offending someone is not reason enough to limit speech...