Everybody should be able to say whatever he wants, even if it hurts feelings.

Perspective Writers' Votes
Loading Discussion

Everybody should be able to say what he wants, even if it hurts feelings. They should face the consequences however. We should not be enslaved by political correctness and keep free speech as one of the most valuable resources of society.

Pros
Cons
  • Free speech is an important part of a democratic society, and isn't going anywhere. It does not, however, let everyone say what they please. It merely means protection from governmental prosecution for unpopular views. People with unpopular views can and will still face consequences through other means, and that's the way it should be.

  • It seems perfectly reasonable to allow virtually all types of speech, barring a few exceptions. Peoples potential hurt feelings shouldn't be a barrier to expression.

  • With the way society acts, especially students at universities do now, we will not hear controversial views from for example right-wing or even not that leftist people. They will not even let them speak. Related: No platform Let us boycott the speeches of people with opposing viewpoints.

  • People do way often start tagging people as bigots, racists, misogynists and whatever-ists, if their viewpoint is offended. It is extremely hard for the people affected by this to get that tag away again.

  • You can say what you want, but people likewise have the right to criticize and challenge you. This is the beauty of living in a society where Free Speech is practiced.

  • Yes people should have the right to speak freely their thoughts and feelings. However it should be the MORAL JUDGEMENT of society that determines if those opinions are valid or should be ignored. The issue we face is caused by the pervasive nature of moral relativism where truth is now a personally defined thing rather than a set of mutually agreed social codes that guide our behaviour and interaction. No one has the right to silence anyone, but we all have the right to ignore an idiot.

  • When people start using hate speech, they will just fall on their own nose and feel the consequences.

  • If we continue to censor articles, to not publish unpopular opinions and rage against any opposing view, we are getting closer to a society without new input.

  • Controversy creates ideas and provokes learning.

  • Political correctness elected Trump.(Did it?)

  • To control what people can say, is to also control what people can think. Such a power is too great for any agency and it should never be bestowed.

  • There's a few broadly agreed upon limits to free speech, in most countries. These take us away from absolute free speech, but seem sensible, reasonable and fair.

  • Every society is different in their interpretation of what constitutes "free speech". The most essential part is not imposing one's view on others - this includes how and why a society practices/ does not practice free speech. For the latter, it is often the result of practicality - preserving diversity by not inflicting hurt on the 'other'.

  • If everybody is allowed to say anything, things like hate speech and false facts (e.g. "fake news") would have no foundation to be removed.

  • There are inequalities that should be fought against. If someone is attacking a minority, he should not speak at all.

  • Feelings are important and we should not ignore them.

  • Language shapes and creates culture. If radical thoughts are often heard in every day life or mainstream media, more people and especially adolescents might pick them up. If we want to progress in a certain direction as a society, we should start by speaking that way and/or limit language that would take us in the opposite direction. Linguistic Relativity / Sapir–Whorf hypothesis

  • By hurting feelings and/or offending others, we lose the opportunity to influence by immediately placing ourselves as the enemy. No one listens to the enemy.

  • If someones thread to life is "god" and you are extremely arguing against that "god", you are really attacking that persons way of life.

  • Statements which have the demonstrable sole purpose and intention of causing distress or anguish in another person maliciously should be (very) marginally penalized, as no one should have the right to cause harm to another person intentionally.

  • Absolute freedom of speech would make defamation and public insult legal

  • If there is a chance to hurt a certain religious group, resulting in violence for the speaker, his social circle or even the whole country, they should keep their mouths shut.

  • Speech is an just an extension of thought and the notion that you can simply legislate to change peoples opinions is utter nonsense. There is no "should be able to" in the real world, people can and they will say whatever they like and no one can effectively prevent that. I put to you the premise is incorrect, what is really being considered is what, if any, penalty should be applied to individuals whose opinions are divergent and whose job in society is it to determine these standards.