Free speech vs. religious ideals, current events in question. Options

[jayi12-15psi]

If you watch the news you're aware of the events taking place in the middle east reguarding violent protests against anti-Muslim danish Cartoons. Most people will tell you that violence is obviously not the answer, but the issue at hand here is... Do you think that the rights of free speech should be curbed so it does not offend a religion?

This post has been edited by jayi12-15psi: Feb 8, 2006 - 5:23 PM

[ILuvMyCelica95]

I think you kinda have it backwards. The liberals are the ones fighting for your liberties more than anybody else.

No, I fully understand that the liberals fight for our liberties, but what I'm asking is, at what point do we have more liberties than our society can handle? Freedom of speech is great unless you're walking up to random people on the street and telling them "your baby was just run over by a dump truck."(if it's a lie) Freedom of speech is great until a simple cartoon is enough to cause death.

I think people are misunderstanding what exactly “freedom of speech” is. Freedom of speech does not mean you can go around misrepresenting the truth. A democratic form of government cannot survive unless people can freely voice their political opinions and criticize government actions or polices.
Of course there are restrictions on you’re freedom of speech, for example the burning of a U.S. Flag is not protected by the first amendment, even though it has been argued that doing so is a freedom of expression. The government has to be able to place restraints on people’s freedom of speech but only when they are necessary to protect other substantial interest and rights. This is why we have courts to determine the point at which laws restricting free speech can be justified by the need to protect other rights.
Consequentially if someone were to run around saying untrue things like "your baby was just run over by a dump truck." And this statement caused some type of harm to the other party For example ( and yeah I’m exaggerating a bit on the consequences here.) The mother of the baby then commits suicide. The father/husband of the victims here could sue the person who misrepresented the truth, if this person had knowledge that the statement was in fact untrue, and used it with malicious intent, this could probably fall under the tort of intentional infliction of emotion distress, if you stretch if far enough, blah blah blah.

Yes I went of on a tangent here but I think it’s important that people understand what freedom of speech means.

Cliff notes: not all things are protected under freedom of speech.