I'd be interested in starting a discussion about this topic.
More in detail, what's the limit between the two? Some people may be in favour of complete freedom of speech, without bothering if they offend anyone, other might take the opposite stance, and avoid saying certain things altogether in some context, other may take the middle ground(s).
However I'm afraid caring too much about what we say, in the most cases, causes total censure, as people would rather conform to the conservative approach, than speak openly for fear of offending anyone (or fear of punishment or discrimination).
This is also related to what I see very often: outwardly some people may seem completely ok and open minded, but when you get to know some better, you realize they are the most arrogant and racist/xenophobic ones. This is an example.
Is total freedom of speech, with no consequences, the answer? There are some serious legal problems, that merit examination such as, to mention a few: libel, slander, obscenity, sedition, incitement, fighting words, divulging of classified information, copyright violation, trade secrets, non-disclosure agreements, the right to privacy, the right to be forgotten, public security, and perjury.
I would like also to link this article: https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/war-against-free-speech-campus
Here are also other interesting opinions with respect to what constitutes hate speech and where the limit should lie: http://www.debatingeurope.eu/2015/06/04/where-should-the-limits-to-freedom-of-speech-be-set/
It is clear, at least for me, there exists no real polarized solution. It seems evident, we ought to make some concessions, although to what degree is difficult to say. Bringing back the debate more in general, even assuming one has no desire to offend someone, it may still happen, and one may not feel free to express their opinion, for fear of aggressive retaliation. Moreover, words can cause emotional damage. This is especially true in the case of young kids, for example. Anyway, I feel I'm again going off topic...
Let me try to put the question in simpler terms. To what degree do you think it's acceptable to limit anyone's freedom of speech?
Other questions worthy of note: can an opinion itself be intrinsically offensive? and in case it is, is it right to censor it? Who should be in charge of defining these limits? In case such limits are not respected, what should be done?
More in detail, what's the limit between the two? Some people may be in favour of complete freedom of speech, without bothering if they offend anyone, other might take the opposite stance, and avoid saying certain things altogether in some context, other may take the middle ground(s).
However I'm afraid caring too much about what we say, in the most cases, causes total censure, as people would rather conform to the conservative approach, than speak openly for fear of offending anyone (or fear of punishment or discrimination).
This is also related to what I see very often: outwardly some people may seem completely ok and open minded, but when you get to know some better, you realize they are the most arrogant and racist/xenophobic ones. This is an example.
Is total freedom of speech, with no consequences, the answer? There are some serious legal problems, that merit examination such as, to mention a few: libel, slander, obscenity, sedition, incitement, fighting words, divulging of classified information, copyright violation, trade secrets, non-disclosure agreements, the right to privacy, the right to be forgotten, public security, and perjury.
I would like also to link this article: https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/war-against-free-speech-campus
Here are also other interesting opinions with respect to what constitutes hate speech and where the limit should lie: http://www.debatingeurope.eu/2015/06/04/where-should-the-limits-to-freedom-of-speech-be-set/
It is clear, at least for me, there exists no real polarized solution. It seems evident, we ought to make some concessions, although to what degree is difficult to say. Bringing back the debate more in general, even assuming one has no desire to offend someone, it may still happen, and one may not feel free to express their opinion, for fear of aggressive retaliation. Moreover, words can cause emotional damage. This is especially true in the case of young kids, for example. Anyway, I feel I'm again going off topic...
Let me try to put the question in simpler terms. To what degree do you think it's acceptable to limit anyone's freedom of speech?
Other questions worthy of note: can an opinion itself be intrinsically offensive? and in case it is, is it right to censor it? Who should be in charge of defining these limits? In case such limits are not respected, what should be done?