It already does in many places. Inciting hate towards a visible minority is a crime in many western countries.

In very small instances like Racist speeches at Hyde Park Corner. Or Incitement to riot and hate ,in those circumstances, yes Anything other than that sort of thing No The problem being who is to decide exactly what is included or excluded from the list

Where is the freedom in limits? NO! What you believe in may not be to the liking of many others, but we all have the same choices, if its your opinion then people should be able to debate it but respect your freedom of speech at the same time.

Sadly, our government is trying to put limitations on what can be said by putting sedition laws in place. - Section 24D(1) specified that [a]ny person who, with the intention of causing violence or creating public disorder or a public disturbance, writes, prints, utters or publishes any seditious words shall be guilty of an indictable offence punishable by [i]mprisonment for 3 years.

Absolutely. People should be free to express opinions, but when they start saying things that can lead to someone getting hurt, it needs to be limited. Racist speech is an opinion. Telling people to kill others of a certain race is crossing the line. Stating opposition to the government is fine. Telling top secret information about programs designed for the safety of the people just because you don't like them is crossing the line. I could go on and on, but I'm going to stop.

If free speech has limits its no longer free

But it would no longer be freedom of speech.

This is an interesting and well-discussed question. Ideally everyone should be free to say what's on their mind, but as already pointed out, in practice most countries place limits on what can be said, especially in the area of inciting racial hatred. Holocaust denial is still a crime in several European countries, for example, and British writer David Irving recently served a prison sentence in Austria for this. As to my own opinion, I personally think anybody should be free to speak their mind. Ridicule and contempt from decent, right-thinking people seem like the proper response for racists and revisionists, not prison. However I can understand that countries which suffered directly through the genocide of WW2 feel differently about it.

In some instances where the smart people just know that those who are easily influenced or just plain gullible, will likely be whipped into a frenzy of violence and hate by others who profess to be merely exercising their rights to free speech, and that the result will be death and suffering for many innocent people! In these types of situations (like we see throughout the religious world) if the desire is to avoid killing, the practical thing to do would be to shut the mouths of those who are poisoning the minds of the weak. The problem is in avoiding subjectivity in interpreting the danger, and in who gets to decide the criteria for what is acceptable and what isn't. This may well be an area where a consensus can never be reached.

Racist speech is not, and should not, be a crime. It is illegal in certain circumstances, that is, when it creates a hostile work (or school) environment, or is done to discourage equal access to public facilities, but BEING a racist and TALKING like a racist is not, and should not, be a crime in and of itself. "Inciting to riot" generally should NOT be a crime (unless there is a specific act of violence specifically demanded -- then, you can charge solicitation to murder or something else more concrete than "inciting to riot.") The reason for this is, such a charge can be used unjustly. For instance, gay people marching to demand equal rights can be accused of "inciting to riot." Speakers at peace rallies can be accused of "inciting to riot." Black activists in the 1960s WERE arrested for "inciting to riot," simply for being black people on white turf. Such laws have to be very, very narrowly drawn if they aren't going to be used against peaceful people making unpopular speeches. In the U.S., freedom of speech is a "fundamental right" which can be limited only in cases of "compelling government interest" by limits which are "narrowly drawn to achieve a particular purpose." That's pretty reasonable. Unfortunately, in times of war and/or when disfavored groups are considered (think gay activists again), judges tend to play fast and loose with the rules. And worse, right now, the Bush Administration is trying to take advantage of the war to silence its critics. Criticizing the government in THIS country is NOT a crime (it was when we were a British colony, and that's why we have the First Amendment -- to protect us from a vengeful, embarrassed government). But THIS White House is willing to ignore the Constitution completely, on free speech, habeus corpus, and a host of other protections. Bush Press Secretary Warns Americans to "Watch What They Say" http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/09/20010926-5.html#Draft Bush White House attempts to suppress / censor Bill Clinton interview post-9/11 http://archive.salon.com/news/feature/2001/09/27/spin/print.html Hate SPEECH is not a crime. Hate CRIMES are -- it's a charge which is called an enhancement to the underlying crime of murder, arson, or whatever -- and that's not punishing "thought crime," it's punishing the terroristic act against the whole black community when a racist, for example, picks out someone just because they are black and drags them behind a car until they are dead. http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/special/jasper/king/201343.html

EDIT No - because then it wouldn't be freedom of speech (i think this has already been said but if it has i will add the following on) Therefore - we'd be like the slaves brought from africa (not being racist just using it as an example)and no one would have any rights and if they tempted to do so you'd probably get killed for it so i think we should all be greatfull that we live in a world where you can speak your mind and not be done for it!

NEVER!

Who then decides what the limits are? Hitler? George W Bush? Who? You? Me?

no. b/c then it wouldnt be called freedom of speech

No. Though if someone is inciting anger through racist/sexist/etc speech, the person who incites should be held responsible. Not the person who is driven temporarily insane. Just my humble opinion.

you should never yell theater in a crowded firehouse.

If we were to limit freedom of speech to those who spoke responsibly, that would certainly shorten the political campaign season.

limited or not... too much of something can cause great damage.

Freedom of speech does already have it's limits. Havent you heard that if you scream !!!FIRE!!!! in a public place you can get arrested. also if you verbally insult the president or a cop or some kind of authority you can also get charged. so freedom of speech have limits.

You don't have Freedom of Speech and you never did. What most people think of as Freedom of Speech is really the first ammendment statement that the GOVERNMENT will not prevent you from saying anything you want. They can still punish you after you've said it. A subsequent Supreme Court review claimed that punishing people after the fact for certain types of speech would have a "chilling effect" on political discourse and would be unconstitutional. But you are not free to say anything you want, and never have been. You can't yell "Fire!" in a crowded moviehouse (or "Movie!" in a crowded firehouse). You can't say "give me your money" in a bank, or "I've got a bomb" on an airplane. The first ammendment only applies to the government. A private individual may penalize you any way they like for whatever you say, so long as they do not otherwise break the law. Note: sufficiently large and/or public organizations are considered to be forms of government.

Ankhorite: The irony is that "on campus" is where we see the most violent and offensive examples of free speech and its limits being tested. Can it be called "hate speech?" This term seems to be intended to protect minorities. In which case the Palestinians enjoy more protection from intimidation that the other students. At this time, the six football players/students have been charged but I am not sure with what.......RE: the burning cross analogy: it reminds me of the swaztika in that it has such powerful connotations, that there are no longer any appropriate places to display/burn it. Wherever a cross is burned, groups are terrorized. Without a doubt it is meant to intimidate groups of people and becomes psychological terrorism.

One limit I would like to see; no bullshit! I have no real problem with people stating opinions. As the old saying goes, opinions are like assholes; everyone has one. I like hearing people speak their minds. It proves we are free. However you get many people that come up with all sorts of 'facts' that are totally unproven but great at inspiring the ignorant masses to do whatever reactionary things you want; imprison Muslims and anybody who speaks ill of the US, discriminate against homosexuals, hang "witches", etcetera. And then there is "swiftboating". a whole other form of bullshitting.

Definitely,...I think a lot of people go to far with some of the things that they say. I think most of our freedoms should have a little more limitation. Especially Freedom of the Press

It does have limits. Dangerous speech is not protected. For example, if you run into a crowded movie theatre and yell "FIRE," it could potentially cause injury and is therefore not within your first amendment right.

Nope. Limiting the freedom of speech has historically always ended badly.

Nope. That would be one of the scariest slippery slopes of all.

As long as it is not rabble rousing I do not think there shoud be limitatations.

The courts have already decided that it does.

no!! but its being curtailed as it is by the 'political correctness' bullshit being forced upon us ...

No, although I wish some people would exercise their freedom to keep their big mouth shut a little more often.

Never.

It does...for instance, you can't incite a riot.

then it wouldn't be "freedom of speech"...

Even an idiot has freedom of speech, but no one is obligated to listen. There has been only one limitation of speech ~ one can not yell 'fire' in a crowded room.

NO!