What is your opinion on how much control the government should have over free speech?

In my social studies class we are discussing ';how much control should the government have over limiting our right to freedom of speech, what limits should be set?';


i was just wondering what other people's opinion on this were? do you think the government should have the power to censor the media or ban certain things from being said? Or do you think society would benefit from having books and various other things, even what people are allowed to say, being banned just because a few people find it offensive?





anyways i was just curious as to what other people thought. i hope i explained my question well enough.What is your opinion on how much control the government should have over free speech?
When limits are put on freedom it loses it's meaning. It isn't free anymore. We should be aware of other's feelings when we speak, this is just plain common sense.


The government though, has too much control over us anyway. For a free country we hold the record on prisons, we even beat out the worst of dictatorships for prisons and the percentage of the population that is in there.


If I remember correctly the figure is something like 25 or 30 percent of our population is in prison for either political or legal reasons.


Ask your teacher why?What is your opinion on how much control the government should have over free speech?
Free speech is quite selective. We do not all have free speech.
... In my opinion, free speech is free speech. Governments should not regulate what they consider free speech. For instance, there sems to be no problem with people saying bad things about the english, dutch germans etc... but God help us if a bad word is uttered about Blacks or Jews.... this does not seem fair. It's not that I have anything bad to say.. but if I did, especially if it was in a joking matter or I were drunk.. eg: Mel Gbson.. then I think we are taking this whole free speech controversy out of context. I would far rather see some sort of gun control instead of speech control... Words can never hurt you unless you let them.
There should be absolutely NO government control on what people can and can't say. Free Speech is a right that should be protected by us. If the government controls what is ';obscene';, then who decides that? What is obscene to you might not be obscene to me, and what is obscene to me might not be for someone else.





Read the book 1984 by George Orwell. You will see in that book what happens if the government has too much control over what we say, do and how we live.
The gov should have NO control over fre speech.





That's the point of it being free speech.
When free speech is banned, the truth cannot be heard. It is a cover-up.
Very little the U.S. Constitution says ';Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.'; The main if not the only exception is where immanent physical harm can come of it like yelling fire in a crowded theater.
In the near future, our government will have control over much more than free speech...
When it becomes dangerous and harmful to others the government needs to step in. I'm afraid it's too late for that. The rights for freedom of speech these days are one sided. Say the word ';Budah'; and it's okay ....say the name ';Jesus'; and all of a sudden they get upset. I'm patriotic yes but The Constitution of the United states of America is being abused.
if any burning on our body , even the impression of burning injury can be eradicated. but spelled out from tongue always in mind still death. So when making allegations, or at the time of angry, we our self should have limit to freedom of speech.


The Society should be given the measurement and control over it . not the government.
The press should be able to say whatever they want. But with that being said, there should be consequences if they are irresponsible. What the New York Times has done recently, on more than one occasion, is seditious if not downright treasonous. And they should be held responsible.





Too many media types hide behind the first ammendment.





Also, the McCain-Feingold campaign reform act should be repealed. It is inneffective at controlling the money being spent in campaigns and is in violation of the average Americans right to free speech. Limiting the voice of anyone 90 days before an election is not good.
the government should have zero control. The only exceptions would be fraud, slander, things like that.
Say what you want...


Just don't step on my rights, or put my soldiers in danger.


CNN, Al Jazeerah, the BBC, and the New york Times need to look at journalism from a perspective of reality.


When your right to free speech imposes on my right to answer then you have none.
It depends on what is being censored, why it is being censored and the situation at the time...


For example, If religious folks want pornography taken off of the internet then that is unacceptable censorship....The religious folks don't have to look at it and it is not hurting them..


For example, If some liberal dems want to publish the Bush plans on listening to terrorist phone calls or intercepting their bank transfers, then government censoring the news and preventing them from divulging this information during a time of war...


There were lots of examples of censorship during WW1 %26amp; WW2


which were for the national good and as both Dems %26amp; Repubs of the time were more concerned about the nations well being than their own re-election , power and lining their pockets, there was little arguement about what censorship was appropriate and what was not.....Unlike the Liberal Dems of today...
No censorship because something is ';offensive.';