Free Speech is your Right but Responsible Speech is your Duty

nice report.. I think you can still speak freely and convey your point of view without offending someone else

offence can occur when a critism changes into insult.. thats the fine line which the people have to keep in mind.

Excellent Excellent Excellent

It is a great Post in deed, however would you please mark it as OPINION.

Thank you.

I have to say that this is probably the best piece on Human right of Free speech that I have read

I am sorry eastvanray but I Do Not Agree with you., reponsible speech is very important in my opinion.The next time you are coming out from a coffee shop and someone starts swearing at you for the way you look,walk or talk slandering your character , calls you indiscremntly to tell you what he feels about you being a christian hindu or muslim or being white or any other color  or waves a terrorist organization symbol, in the name of free speech you think of what you have to say about that kind of free speech.

and you talk about throwing people in jail for that of course governments have been throwing people in jail for speaking freely in this country and the rest of the world and will keep on doing so ,,, thats a very separate issue remeber the whistle blowers.or the guy who threw a shoe at Bush (freedom of his expression) ...give me a break east ;)

I think Author is absolutely right about Responsible speech !!

wanna add to the article "our freedom to speech ends where the others freedom to speech begins ".

It doesn't matter, these days, whenever one expresses an opinion in this nervous and twitchy world, she'll always offend another's.  So, I say grab the soapbox, climb up on it, and express yourself.  When someone throws you a tomato, eat it, and then show him gratitude.

If I may offer some constructive criticism, you may want to consider having future articles proofread, as this one has a few spelling and grammatical errors (usage of 'is' over 'are').  Unfortunately, only a fraction of communication is conveyed through the intent of the words used.

My internet community is challenging this very issue right now.  Being a group of people with poor social learning in addition makes it very hard to define where the line exists.  Some folks are hypersensitive and that can lock down communication, while others are defiantly insensitive and again, it closes off communication.  

I think if we sincerely care about the person to whom we are speaking and recognize the validity of them and how they feel, we take enough care to speak without offending.  But sometimes some folks get offended anyway, it's their favorite thing to do!  So we then need secondary observers to arbitrate the situation and decide whether the speaker gave offense or the victim is asking too much.

I too believe in free speech, and personally would exercise control when it comes to sensitive issues.  However, I do feel free speech should be just that.  Everyone should have the right to say exactly what they feel.  I've come across articles where people have said dispicible things that have made my blood boil, but I still value the fact that people can express what they feel.  When someone is representing an organization or a group though, they need to realize they are not just speaking for themselves.  I don't feel threatening someone with death when you don't agree with what they say is the answer either.  We must all be able to rebute or express with our words without fear.     

Esta's comments about "words" versus "actions" should be well noted.

I think the thing that authoritarians and despots fear the most is freedom of speech...

...so they attempt to impose censorship; and, if that fails, they try to instill self-censorship through fear and intimidation.

It may not be deemed "responsible" to term such a responsee neurolinguistic fascism; the "thought police" might even say that is a "lie" and try to misconstrue the remark as "hate speech."

But that is my considered opinion and I just said it. 

And those who don't like it -- that's just the way it rolls in a free society.

Or, to put it less politely:

Tough noogies.

But, as Justice Brandeis noted, freedom of speech does not give someone the right to cry "Fire!" in a crowded theater.  Such speech rises to the level of reckless endangerment, and thus would be actionable in the event that such reckless speech resulted in injury or damages, as I understand it.  But I'm not a lawyer, so don't hold me to that...

Read what JFK had to say about free speech, secret societies and a free press (April 27, 1961) and ask yourself:  Did this speech help seal his fate?

“The very word “secrecy” is repugnant in a free and open society; and we are as a people inherently and historically opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths and to secret proceedings. We decided long ago that the dangers of excessive and unwarranted concealment of pertinent facts far outweighed the dangers which are cited to justify it. Even today, there is little value in opposing the threat of a closed society by imitating its arbitrary restrictions. Even today, there is little value in insuring the survival of our nation if our traditions do not survive with it. And there is very grave danger that an announced need for increased security will be seized upon by those anxious to expand its meaning to the very limits of official censorship and concealment. That I do not intend to permit to the extent that it is in my control.”

free speech is absolute i agree but how can u defend the right of free speech to someone who is in your face offending you. you really think i am gandhi and going to listen to someone who's coward enuff to be hiding behind this free speech and is in my face telling me off : let me tell you his free speeking mouth is meeting my fist.

East Van I am sorry but when was the last time police got involved when you were cursed for being you.I agree the speech has to be responsible, I think you are arguing for the sake of argument.

To understand what is going on in this Satanic New World Order go on my web.

- One World Religion

- One World Government

-One World Army

- One World Economy

-One rules of Law

http://marialerouxi.aceboard.fr/i-270040.htm 

Maria, Quebec citizen

The author says:

"Who are we  to let these symbols get disrespected or desecrated in the name of free speech when it hurts the sentiments of so many."

Fair enough but what if free speech is a sentiment for me, and what if my sentiments are hurt when someone dictates to me what I should or should not speak, what I should draw or not draw, what I should write or not write? What then?

Please remember. Speech that is not offensive never needs any protection.

It is only offensive speech that needs protection. If you ever did a superficial reading of the history of free speech, you'd know what I mean.

By inventing things like "responsible" speech, this speech and that speech, we are going backwards, towards the medieval age when even kings did not enjoy full freedom of speech because some religious bozo with a book in his hand dictated what could be said and what could not be said.

Also, please note that all animals enjoy uninhibited free speech. Making sounds is one of the most natural forms of expression. Only humans have this theory that speech must be curtailed, so that other humans' sensibilities are not hurt. How many of us think of the sensibilites of those whose freedom of expression is curtailed in this fashion?

Why curtail the free speech of a hundred individuals just because one individual's sensibilites are hurt?

Buddha asked us to treat others with respect and justice. One component of such treatment is the respect of the opposite person's right to free speech.

Very nicely written article.Do gooders dont understand that sometimes too far is too bad