Should there be a limit to free speech and if so where?
In a break with previous issues which have tested our Your Sayers to resolve such questions as 'does God exist?' and 'what is the purpose of life' this month the Your Sayers were supposed to look within themselves for the answer. Interestingly, this seems to have been the hardest question ever set!
‘Should there be a limit to free speech and if so where?’
"Anyone has the right to have his/her opinion."
Free Speech -as long as there is respect by the speaker (any speaker) to the audience (ANY audience). Anyone has the right to have his/her opinion. There needs to be a code, though, as to how one can and may express him/herself without offending the audience in any way.
If one communicates thoughts and ideas making it clear that what s/he utters are only personal opinions and NOT 'REAL FACTS' , then I don't believe that there needs to be some limit to free speech beyond respect towards different ideas and beliefs on any issue. Maria (Queen Mary) Cyprus Republic
"Freedom of speech is a fundamental right of an individual."
It is perceived as an indicator of a legal system – the vaster this freedom is, the more democratic system rules. One could ask if there are any limits beyond which we must keep quiet.
From my viewpoint those limits should be created in peoples mind and mustn’t be written in any law codex. A good taste and a common sense should frame the opinions one can publish or say out loud without bad consequences. I consider the freedom of speech a sacred thing as long as it doesn’t offend anyone or deprive somebody else of his or hers right to give the thoughts a free way.
Lately, a British historian David Irving has been convicted and sentenced to three years in Austrian prison because of denying the Holocaust. I staunchly oppose the situation in which a juridiciary body meddles in the right of a free speech. Irving should be excluded from the academic society, his works and lectures should be banned all over the world. Now this convicted man serves the martyr for Shoah deniers. This case shows how absurd the limit setting of what can or can’t be said in a public place is. Anna, Poland
"People must show respect towards others."
To my mind, recent events showed that despite the fact that we live in a democratic world some limitations should be introduced, namely the censorship of the press. Dannish newspaper forgot that the freedom of speech does not give the right to insult.
People must show respect towards other beliefs, religions and traditions, especially now, when so little is needed to provoke cruel fights between Muslim and Christian worlds. I just wonder what reaction would be if any Arabian paper published the caricature of Jesus Christ, for instance…Therefore, sometimes people should remember that speech is silver, but silence if gold. If you have nothing wise to say or want to offend other better don’t speak at all, especially using public sources. Diana Kurkul (Lithuania)
"Free speech is an inalienable human right."
It is protected in many important documents including; The United Nations Declaration of Human Rights; The European Convention of Human Rights and many Constitutions of Countries. Why should we give up these rights?
In light of the recent protest in the Middle East over the Danish cartoon, demonstrations are allowed but violence? These people for years printed cartoons of Western politicians and religious leaders of the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church. Their cartoons mock the fabric of Western society. Do you see protests? Do you see people burning flags or burning down embassies? No.
Free speech should not be compromise due to religious beliefs or intolerance. Its is an inherent human right and cannot be compromised. Stephen, Ireland
"We should only limit the speech of others when what is said causes harm."
Occasionally something happens nationally to cause the debate over freedom of speech to come to the forefront of people’s minds. However, this debate is currently global.
Free speech is a vital part of civilised society but I think people would find it hard to support unrestricted freedom to say what we want. This is because we have to respect one another and, increasingly, live with different types of people.
As people think differently about any given issue, there will be times, as there is now, when an opinion will upset and hurt people but we cannot stop people doing or saying anything simply because it offends us. I feel that is the price we must pay to live in a free society.
This freedom must be defended because it allows people to engage freely and hold belief systems- of all kinds. With freedom comes responsibility so is it responsible to say what we want even if it is false and dangerous?
What is important about freedom of speech is that people should be able to hear what others think and make up their own mind about it. There should be a freedom to debate, criticise and challenge people’s thoughts and beliefs.
While freedom of expression is essential, it shouldn't be used to provoke hatred and division. Freedom of speech is not a licence to attack a culture or religion. As we live in a multicultural society, it should be every citizen’s duty to learn or understand about each other's faiths and culture so any form of expression is an informed one. I believe that all members of society should be given equal respect. There should be no place for prejudice in the public sphere. Ultimately, I feel we should only limit the speech of others when what is said causes harm. Sharmin Islam, UK
"There should not be any laws saying you can’t say that or that."
This is a very complicated topic, however it’s simple too. Freedom of speech a right that people gained after so many revolutions, that together with the right of equality. Therefore I think that the right of freedom of speech should not have boundaries. The boundaries are the ethical ones we should set to ourselves. There should not be any laws saying you can’t say that or that. Whenever you say what you think there is always someone who gets offended or someone who disagrees. If you think it is ok to insult a whole religious wave then so will it be, but you must suffer the consequences. I am of the opinion we should first think before we speak and nobody should limit our freedom of speech, it is a matter of ethics. Mainly we should think twice before we use that so appreciated right. Dimitra (Dimi) Greece
"Freedom of speech must be defended against extremisms."
I believe that freedom of speech should be limited, the limit being the cases in which it is used to get accross messages encouraging hate or violence, or the limitation of other people's freedom of speech. This has been the policy in most European countries for a long time, and even the UK is turning towards it, with the arrests and trials of islamic preachers that used to be allowed to preach hatred of the Western world in the name of 'freedom of speech'.
In the case of the caricatures of the muslim prophet, it is clear anyway that the movement against Denmark and all countries where papers have published them is being led by populists who use these occasions to turn people away from their problems and gain popular support through radicalism. Although it is blasphemous to represent the prophet in the muslim religion, his representation by a non-muslim shouldn't be such a problem since the rules of islam wouldn't apply. Moreover, it is clear that it is a question of radicalism because the christian god musn't be represented either if you follow the strict rules, and yet many caricaturists have done that since C19th, without being demonstrated against. I think this issue is obviously linked to the fact that there is a radicalisation of islam in the Middle-East, due to its economical problems.
Freedom of speech must be defended against extremisms. Giving in to its enemies leads to dictatorship, violence and ignorance, as Europeans painfully know. Araceli, France
"Freedom of expression must be subject to criticism too."
I am definitely for putting limits to freedom of expression. The limit should not be set through censorship, though. We really have to mantain the right to inform about facts and transmit opinions with freedom, but based on true responsability for the contents. International legal procedures should be set in place so that 'free expression' of false information, unjustified offensing contents, etc. sould be sanctioned on demand on the affected person, or group of persons.
In occidental countries freedom of expression is often treated as a god-like value which cannot be subject to criticism. We kind of became 'freedom of expression' fanatics. This is bad, since it excludes all further discussion on relatid issues: 'We have freedom of expression here', and this is all that will be said, enough for justifying sometimes really denigrant behaviours. A situation to be avoided by all means!' Andres, Spain
"We are free of doing what we want only if we do not harm others and do not violate their rights."
In my opinion, this simple sentence “in democracies, rights of one person is limited with the rights of the others” explains all. We are free of doing what we want only if we do not harm others and do not violate their rights. Talking about Danish cartoons, their behaviour is not freedom of speech but lack of ethical values and respect to other people’s beliefs because their cartoons do not tell a general opinion or criticism to lead the public to a better level. On the contrary, they target an important and respected person of a group of people. Difference is always hidden in details. They could have used the caricature of an ordinary person to express their opinion instead of a Prophet. I can not see any “freedom of speech” in attacking to the holy values of a group of people.
However, according to me a juridical act for punishing such behaviour would not be suitable. If there is disrespect to public values, the punishment should be disapproval and objection of the public. I would expect Europeans to disapprove such behaviour instead of making the cartoonists “Heros for Freedom of Speech”.
I do not agree with the violent protest of Muslims, as well. If there is not enough reaction from European public then a financial protest of Muslims such as not buying Danish products for a while would be better to show and remind them we all need each other to survive in a globalized world and this requires respecting to each other’s values. Selen, Turkey
"Should there be a limit to free speech? NO, thanks!."
In Europe we should be very proud of our values and the freedom of speech is a value that we should preserve.
I was born in 1983 but my country lived under a dictatorship regime until 1974. During that regime, people couldn’t express their feelings; people couldn’t know the truth about the country and the world. Then, with the revolution of 1974, everything changed, and freedom of speech has become a very important value, just like the other European countries had it before.
The disturbs that happened over the last weeks are a message of terrorism and should be seen as it. I trust in Muslim people and I believe they are great people that understand what cartoons are and mean in Europe: nothing!
Of course we should not offend other cultures, we should avoid it. But the meaning of cartoons should be seen in the European territory: they are not an example of insults. Pedro, Portugal