Title: There should be no limit to freedom of speech. | Kialo
Headings: There should be no limits on freedom of speech.
There should be no limits on freedom of speech.
Pros
Limiting speech is a slippery slope and it is hard to know how far we allow limits. If we begin cherry picking what is and isn't acceptable then we will never know when to stop.
It is possible to legislate on what people do but not on what they think or say.
Censorship leads to narrow mindedness by preventing sincere and open discussion.
No one has a right to demand protection against being offended.
To control what ideas can be expressed publicly is to control social discourse and, to some extent, what people think. No agency should be bestowed such power.
The only way to beat bad, threatening or offensive ideas is to shine the brightest light on them possible and let the world see them for what they are.
Isolated speech has zero capacity to inflict physical harm.
There should be no limits to freedom of speech as everyone has a right to voice their opinions and this right should not be taken away from them or limited.
The law should prohibit speech which incites violence.
Unlimited freedom of speech can be used to spread hateful and/or harmful ideologies.
One person's freedom ends where another's begins: offensive, threatening speech should be illegal.
There is no clear divide between speech and action. Some speech is, in practical terms, an action. 'If you kill my wife I will pay you £10k' is simply a series of vocalised words. Yet it's also the commissioning of a serious crime.
Speech can cause psychological, material and sometimes physical harm to people who did not ask to be subjected to it, and should therefore be restricted by law and technology.
Limitless freedom of speech is impossible.

Content: There should be no limit to freedom of speech. | Kialo
There should be no limits on freedom of speech. Pros
Cons
Limiting speech is a slippery slope and it is hard to know how far we allow limits. If we begin cherry picking what is and isn't acceptable then we will never know when to stop. It is possible to legislate on what people do but not on what they think or say. Censorship leads to narrow mindedness by preventing sincere and open discussion. No one has a right to demand protection against being offended. To control what ideas can be expressed publicly is to control social discourse and, to some extent, what people think. No agency should be bestowed such power. The only way to beat bad, threatening or offensive ideas is to shine the brightest light on them possible and let the world see them for what they are.