Kialo requires cookies to work correctly.
There should be no limit to freedom of speech.
There should be no limits on freedom of speech.
Censorship leads to narrow mindedness by preventing sincere and open discussion.
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.
It is possible to legislate on what people do but not on what they think or say.
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.
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.
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.
The law should prohibit speech which incites violence.
There are legitimate reasons to keep some information out of the public domain, which means limiting the ability to talk about it.
There must be limitations. Such as copyright; an author must be allowed a monopoly on his creation.
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.
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.
Should Governments Ever Limit Free Speech?
There should be no welfare state.
Should Hate Speech Be Legally Protected?