How do you watch what you say: by trying to define the boundaries of free speech?
87751
The Constitution of the United States of America provides protection of the speech acts of its citizens provided that:\n1. they are not putting anyone else in danger,\n2. the person involved in the speech act is not in the military or incarcerated,\n3. the speech act is not considered obscene by the judicial system.\n\nOther than that, free speech should not be curtailed under the law.
1118158
You draw the line at the point where you have to make an opinionated decision of your own, it is fine to listen to others opinions to a point, as long as you feel they are not influencing your descision, at some point you have to say, ok.....this is what I Believe.......
743014
This is the thing about "freedom of speech". We all have the opportunity to speak our mind. BUT in a polite thoughtful publically acceptable manner. Would you like someone screaming obsenities and making obscene gestures if anyone's mother, grandmother, or small child were standing there? Well, I do not like it If I am standing there. Politeness is not taking away anything; it is allowing ALL of us to live together in less and less space...Having control over what you say is being an adult...screaming and yelling or typing stuff that is not really necessary nor particularly indicative of any intelligence is hardly anything to strive for nor anything to complain about if others do not like it and they say so...THAT Is freedom of speech.
889501
Short Answer:  Rights of Free Speech and Free Press
62712
Just because you have freedom of speech, if you're saying things that challenge people's believes, the status quo or things people just don't want to hear, then the freedom of speech doesn't protect you against retaliation from certain people.  Most of the time people retaliate by speaking back, such as in a debate or a peaceful rally.  Sometimes, people are so upset or feel their beliefs are being so challenged that they kill the source of the 'offending' speech.
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!
1044386
I think there's a great difference between discussing ideas and discussing people. If you disagree with my ideas, and you tell me your reasons, I will possibly still stick to my views, but I will not dislike you. Now, it's different if you say I'm an idiot for thinking the way I think. In that case, you'd be discussing me as a person. And that, I would resent.\n\nAs for television free speech, let me tell you I have very definite political ideas. And I usually watch once a week, or so, a programme with the exact opposite views. I do that to know what they're up to. So, no. I would not try to censor them. Sometimes, I'd like to be there with them, and say what I feel, and if they're talking too much crap, I'll probably change the channel. But I stand for their right to say what they want.
358073
No! For me personally, it is more about the language used to express some ideas. I too have served in the military and stand for freedom of speech.It is not necessary to yell,use foul words,throw things,   destroy people or property to get your point across. Yet all too often we do.Ask why? To be a better listener is a start.
873498
Anything inciting a riot, disruption of peace, and anything involving a conspiracy to incite, or act, with depraved indifference from this speechs consequence, including the possibility TOWARDS a crime being commited from this right (free speech, as it was intended for), in my opinion, is not free speech.
60488
Speak truthfully and freely.\n\nBe considerate, and do not use any personal derogatory directed foul language for no reason.\n\nOtherwise, to hell with their guidelines impeding free thoughts and speech. \n\nLet 'em be headquarintined in North Korea if they do not like our free airwaves. :o)
505877
Posturing using words to antagonize or argue.
392150
I don't think we've ever had true freedom of speech.  For example, you've never been able to walk into a crowded theater and yell fire.  If you do, you'll get arrested for causing a disturbance.\n\nTrue freedom of speech would be being able to say what you want, when you want regardless of what happens.  Under the bush administration I do feel like we've lost some of that freedom (If you say anything anti-Bush, you are declared a terrorist or a troop basher).  Sad days, good news is he can't be in office for that much longer!
155702
yes i think that censorship limits freedom of speech. censorship pretty much tells everyone that we cannot express the way we feel or what we think. if those who signed the bill of rights really didnt want to be able to express ourselves the way want they would have probably said that we had the freedom of censorship and not speech or some of the people would simply not have signed it all.
373011
Having the right to speak your mind should not mean that you escape the consequences of speaking your mind.  It's a double-edged sword.  For instance, you can say what you like about someone, but if you say something untrue about someone else, that person can sue you -- that's their right.  Being able to lie about someone without fear of consequences would be a bad thing.\n\nAlso, you can say what you want, but you have no right to expect someone to support what you say if they don't agree with it.  For instance, if you write an article for a magazine slamming a politician, and the owner of the magazine doesn't agree with it, he doesn't have to let you print that article using his money and his resources.  he may *choose* to allow you to do that, but he's under no obligation to -- the owner of the magazine has a right to freedom of speech, too, and your right to say what you want should not infringe on his right to use his property (the magazine) as he sees fit.\n\nAs a side note, this is not censorship.  Private citizens have the freedom to decide how their resources and property is used; only the government can be accused of censorship.\n\nSo I'd say that freedom of speech should be unrestricted, up to the point that it infringes on another person's rights (and you have no right to not be offended, so so-called 'hate speech', a chillingly Orwellian concept, does not apply).
941683
So, you should be free to say whatever you want, but no one should be free to criticize?\n\nFree speech is great, but taking the heat for what you say is part of the package.  Unless there's a concerted effort to have you completely silenced, this is just more of the usual whining that comes when you're held accountable for your own words.\n\nA bigger question is why you feel this compulsion to post overly-generalized, cartoonish and stereotypical characterizations as straw-man questions.\n\nAre you naturally a troll, or does this require a special effort on your part?
520327
Freedom of speech.\nThe caveat is that with ANY freedom comes responsibility.\nYou don't go into a movie theater and shout out "fire".\nAt the same time, you don't go shouting out hate-filled words at people, either.\nIf you do, you are a moron.
179589
Censorship can not truelly be justified in any sense.  It is simply societies way of controlling what they do not agree with.