What are some cons of restricting free speech?
86943
Free speech has some limitations, like not screaming fire in a closed theatre. Thus, it is not unrestricted, and whenever it goes against the basic morals of the country it should be deemed as detrimental. In these times of electronic communications, free speech needs to be reviewed and more limits imposed.\n\nThere are some 'cons' to restricting it, if it is done by irresponsible people or Satanists. For example, the left is trying to make it impossible for Christian people to voice their faith. So having public prayer is restricted in some institutions. That is a huge 'con' on restricting free speech, since the people who want to push religion out of our lives are the same who would benefit from a decadence in our moral values: homosexuals, pedophiles, communists, etc.
802001
See newt gingrich's comment about restricting free speech, kinda says it all. I say any attempt to limit free speech or any other attacks on our constitution should be dealt with by revolution!
480460
:}\nwife abuse\npoverty\nno freedom of religion\nIslamic theocracy
745002
get rid of freedom of speech
259781
yes you do. when it comes to your well being you have total freedom of speech and it is a crime to prevent it. when it comes to controling your  life you have freedom of speech but it's not worth the breath it cost if you don't have a sympathetic adult willing to help. unless it's how smart you want to be, then you won't have to tell anybody!!
285924
Not of speech.  I believe that the way to calm many problems is allowing people to talk them out.  I don't see how saying something that you believe is bad.  Even if it is repugnant to others or hurtful to some.  Everyone on this earth is entitled to feel however they want.  EVEN if they hate me...my religion...my family...my country...my God.  That doesn't mean I will agree with them or even dignify what they say with a response but I will not censor them as I would not want to be censored.
1148766
Yes - many.\n\nCommercial speech isn't afforded as much protection as political speech.  Speech that is classified as conduct is afforded very little protection.  Pornography and nude dancing are afforded less protection....\n\nThose are just a few of the "free speech" limitations...
820325
I think that Yahoo does limit our speech a lot. Most posts that get deleted have a certain bias, either by using certain words, having an honest opinion/comment that disagrees with yahoo/the poster, or even protesting our currrent president. Nevertheless, it's kind of allowed, because yahoo must monitor what goes on. We have freedom of speech and expression, but our modes are limited.
886942
I don't think there's specific cases as to why the denial is legal.  As you said, freedom of speech is why.  That's the same reason there's racist people, homophobes, and crazy religious fanatics.
869836
Your other respondents have already given you the basic answer.  Where your expression creates an imminent danger to other citizens, then that expression is not allowed.  Some words are considered too inflammatory for public expression, or "fighting words".  You cannot express yourself to the point of provoking others to violence or panic where public safety is jeopardized.  That is common sense and our laws were written with a common sense public in mind.  In other words, most of us know what is right and what is wrong.  We know better than to incite a riot with lying words in a polarized crowd for instance.  Because some people are too dense to use common sense, we have had to verbalize and memorialize some of those restrictions.  Call it censorship if you wish but it is really stating certain restrictions on the freedom of expression that most of us already clearly understand.
915678
Free speech. You can insult, label, ect anyone you want, though some people need to learn that just because you can do something doesn't mean you should.
1140358
IMHO, governments should keep away from all matters religious in the same way that religious figures and organizations should keep their hands off politics.\nThis kind of interference with the public's right to learn someone's point of view is an ugly violation of freedom of speech.
124486
Anyone can say anything he or she wants in this country - however that person can be held accountable for damage, defamation, reckless disregard for truth of falsity, libel, slander, - and yes, Diamond D. is correct. \n\nEven if I do NOT like what some one says, publishes, broadcasts, it is not against the law unless it falls out side of Constitutionally protected speech.  We have no prior restraint ( Near V Minn ) and one can collect damages for Actual Malice ( New York Times vs Sullivan ) - if they are not a public figure.\n\nFreedom of speech comes with responsibility and consequences.  And again to the Love it or Leave its out there - I would NEVER censor or try to deny their rights to their free expression of opinion.  They are American citizens and their speech is as protected - as MINE is. \n\nWorks both ways - but I will support their rights to free speech even if they do NOT support mine.
347649
This is NOT a freedom of speech issue. No one has the right to publish on Answers. It would be like sending an article to a newspaper and demanding that they print it because you think that's "free speech." The newspaper has the right to refuse to publish obscene, racist, vile, reprehensible material -- as well as any other material. Yahoo! owns this site and has the right to decide what stays and what goes. If you want true freedom of speech, create your own web site.\n\nBut, that said, I don't think Yahoo! does a good enough job of monitoring this site and enforcing the guidelines they do have. Until they can maintain the current guidelines, which are really the bare minimum for civil discourse, I don't think they should be stricter.
804667
There is a difference between free speech and inciting a riot.  Free speech also doesn't give one a license to say whatever, whenever.  There still is a responsibility for the words one speaks.  Don't know what promted this question, but I don't have any issue with yahoo's policies governing posting on the site.
1146735
Ah yes the right to free speech. Note it is freedom OF speech - not freedom FROM speech.\n\nWelcome to America!
9944
Absolutely not. It's necessary to protect the right to free unbiased information. This applies for free speech as well. There's no such thing as the right to censor something to protect something else. About movies, they should come all in UNRATED version, with option to censor through the DVD player those parts children shouldn't see.\nSomething else: those who claim that the so-called "hate speech" should be banned don't really believe in free speech, or at least don't understand the concept.