Yes, I think that everybody must have the freedom to speak.There is no danger in a spoken word but there can be a danger in an unspoken.
All U. S. citizens have freedom of speech. According to Wikipedia, this is what NAMBLA is all about: Whatever you think of them, and I certainly don't support them, this is certainly protected speech. It doesn't matter if it is "disgusting".
Funny how that organization stays on the fringes of legality- - I gotta say Im all for free speech -even some of the worst groups> > but that one^- man........ You dont hear of then having to many rallies- where people can actually get at them- -so thier "free speech" must just be the kind in print- - for thier own saftey
If a country does not have free speech, then someone has to be given the authority to decide who can express their ideas and who can't. That's too much power in the hands of one person or group. It is hard to maintain anything remotely resembling a democracy under such conditions.
The concept of "freedom of speech" is held holy in the United States and Western Europe, as it should be, but remember that as put forward in the US Constitution, it does not mean that anyone can say any damn thing they please, any time they please. Read the text of the First Amendment. It doesn't say anything about you being "free" to say whatever comes into your head. What it says is that Congress cannot pass laws restricting the freedom of speech. Subtle but important difference. I don't claim to be an expert in Constitutional law, but I know that it means, for example, that material produced for private consumption can be censored by its owners/publishers if they care to. It has also come down through court interpretations that you cannot say things that are slanderous. You cannot say things that threaten people with bodily harm or violence. You cannot say things to incite the overthrow of the government or of government agencies. The courts have decided that those cases are not protected by the First Amendment. There are many more "you cannot's", but those three alone might put the KKK on shaky ground. Well, that's exactly what courts do when interpreting laws on slander, treason, etc. It's not just about "expressing ideas". It's about threatening violence and whatnot, as I just mentioned. It can be a fine line sometimes, for sure. What one man sees as slander, another might see as personal expression. But that's why we have courts.
I think they should be able to say whatever they want, protest peacefully, etc. However, I think having public KKK parades would probably incite panic.
I guess I'm picturing like, thousands of KKK members in full regalia marching through the streets of Detroit. *shudder*
They have a right to say what they want to say, but that's totaly different from hurting others because of their beliefs
Free speech is everyones right, some exercise it in public while others exercise it in private. It is the latter group I find most dangerous.
The question isn't 'do or don't they have the right', it's "should they have the right'. A lot of guys aren't answering the question.
what makes you think you have the right to censor someone? There are all kinds of media out there, and you get to pick what controls you. But when you say that some of the media shouldn't be allowed to be viewed, it won't stop there, and in the end, you might be the one whose being censored. Have you read 1984? Things don't get to the point where everything is being censored except one opinion over night. We would relize what was going on and stop it. It would start with one group, that everyone hates being censored. And it would take off from there