It is thought to be essential in a free and democratic society.

Sunstein, C. Democracy and the Problem of Free Speech. NY: Free Press, 1993.

Freedom of speech hah you must be joking !

Most school administrators indicate that schools should enhance immunity and free speech because exchange of thoughts and ideas is extremely prominent in a learning environment....


In addition, past presidents such as George Washington and Thomas Jefferson instituted the rights of freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and the freedom to petition so that the people would realize that they do indeed matter and that they are the core of America....

Laws about obscenity, libel, slander and official secrets restrict freedom of expression, yet society’s understanding of what is offensive often needs to be clarified by the courts.

Freedom of speech should not be misused to distribute lies.

To give you some examples of high-profile hate speech cases and legislation in Europe, we’ve put together the infographic below (click for a larger image).

No limit, we either have freedom of speech or we do not!

So, where should the limits be set? We had a comment sent in by arguing that the limits to freedom of speech should be restricted to explicit calls for physical violence and libel against other individuals.

I don’t consider freedom of speech the same as freedom of insulting

Today I spoke to you about Japan's enthusiasm for building an "arc of freedom and prosperity" around the outer rim of the Eurasian continent through diplomacy that emphasizes values.

The limits should be set at the freedom of others to speak.

Broadly speaking, I would agree with Leo, and agree that there are of course always limitations on various different rights and freedoms that we enjoy in society. But we have to be very careful where we place those limits, and not regulate or prohibit speech too easily or quickly. So, if we want to have a standard for when restrictions or limitations should come in, then I think calls for incitement to imminent violence and unlawful acts should be where we put those limitations. But a racist comment in and of itself, while we would disagree with that comment and not want it said, we shouldn’t be invoking the criminal law to ban it.

NO!Freedom of speech is one of basic natural human rights.

Venezuela should be a democratic country with freedom of expression as its constitution states, the government should not violate the law by censoring the media to announce news that all citizens and the rest of the world need to know regarding to what is it happening in Venezuela everyday....

This is an oxymoron. Freedom of speech should not have limits.

Some people nowadays disagree with the idea that freedom of expression is guaranteed, believing only freedom of speech and religious practices are express rights given by the constitution in the first amendment, and that the term "freedom of expression" is too broad an interpretation....