ANSWERS: 30
  • True. If they take away what we can say, where will they go from there?
  • True. It's a great idea, if only everyone would realize that everybody is entitled to their own opinion, and we retain the freedom to accept, or reject that of others. Simple in theory, difficult in practice! +3
  • "should" don't have anything to do with it. ;-)
  • There has to be limitations on what is said. If you slander someone than you should be held accountable. Otherwise we need differences of opinion to grow as a society.
  • To a degree..
  • In most cases.
  • Eh...they should probably concentrate on what people do, rather than what they say.
  • There is someone whom we know that is not going to be censured unless she wants to be :-)
  • IMO the government should do what they see as necessary at all times, if we the people disagree then when should remove the government from power and replace it with a new one.
  • The government should not censor absolutely anything. The courts should have the power to stop slander/libel through a lawsuit by the injured party.
  • T R U E.. absolutely
  • True. :-)
  • TRUE! PLEASE get out of our lives. The micro-managing of the intelligent is disruptive and counterproductive. +5
  • Someone once pointed out that the various listed rights clearly could not all exist at once. . The government should not censor what is reasonably free speech. But publishing a list of undercover spies is clearly not a reasonable use of free speech. Even liberal types agree with this even though they mostly only reference Valerie 'not actually undercover' Plame when they do. The right to bear arms is not a 'no-matter-what-under-any-circumstances' kind of thing. None of them are. . Martial law can and must be declared under extreme circumstances. How extreme those circumstances must be is perhaps the best measure of the relationship of citizen to the government. . But on to the issue at hand. . There are two ways to abridge free speech; prior restraint and after-the-fact punishment. . So I'm in the proverbial and tedious crowded theater all aflutter because I want to shout 'FIRE!'. The government, perhaps in the form of a local copper senses that I am looking all shouty and he duct-tapes my mouth before I can even get out a decent 'ffffffff'. That's prior restraint. . After the fact is when I do manage to shout 'FIRE' and any negative consequences that come of it are then addressed in a legal way. . Both forms of censorship are harmful to a free society but both are also obviously sometimes necessary. . Absolutism, no matter how appealing, is generally just fascism with a pedigree.
  • The socialist and dictatorial countries do it all the time, are we there yet? if not this obamanation will try to do just that!
  • False, Grovernment should censor speech, press media and internet.
  • True in many cases. False in some cases. . Would You like to see videos of live murder and batshit crazy porn all over everywhere, easily accessible?
  • The state should not censor speech but in the case of libel and slander citizens and business should be able to have their cases heard in the courts and the judgments legally enforced by the state. Of course responsible adults ought to use judgement when choosing to speak or publish information.
  • The people should have the right to choose! Ban the Censor!!
  • False, there are things that required to be censored.
  • Depends on what exactly is meant. For most things, I'd say the government shouldn't censor...but there are a few that should be banned. Anything that consists of libel or the exploitation of children, for example.
  • Both. If it involves child porn, then yes the government should be allowed.
  • True. Also true - The public should never trust in the press, media, or even internet NOT to be manipulated. History has taught us that nothing has "evolved" about human nature. +3
  • False. NOBODY (or no entity of any kind) should ever censor anyone or anything, from the eyes and ears of anyone over age 18. +5
  • True and False at the same time. The government should NOT intrude on the privacy of the everyday person, however if someone is a SERIOUS suspect in the planning and execution of a terrorist plan, YES!
  • True as an ideal. False as a matter of reality. Ahem! What speech is truly "free" anywhere? Talk is cheap - but cheap isn't free...you always pay a price for your words and opinions....sometimes with your life.

Copyright 2018, Wired Ivy, LLC

Answerbag | Terms of Service | Privacy Policy