I am radically in favor of freedom of expression. The way to deal with that is by undoing arguments over and over. It takes work, but I see it as necessary.

However, as I am seeing various contacts advocating for the elimination of listening to both sides (more specifically regarding COVID), I am wondering if freedom of speech should be limited or not?

What are the consequences of limiting the speech? And the pros?

I do see the limitation of speech as too much, even if the other side has stupid ideas. I think that it is always possible to fight ideas with ideas and speech with speech. And if one is right then one must have an advantage in the debate. This has to come.

Regarding freedom of speech, more specifically the decision points regarding that lead to its limitation, I have asked another question.

  • This might be a question more suited for Politics SE. Even in the US, which probably has the most liberal policy on speech, there are some exceptions. One is for "fighting words... those that by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace", others have to do with (proven) libel and speech of inmates. Broader restrictions on what is called "hate speech" are actively discussed. Generally, restrictions are applied to balance strong effects of speech outside of its normal function in discourse.
    – Conifold
    Nov 28 '20 at 23:39
  • Limited by whom and on what rules? And with what protections to ensure those rules are enforced?
    – Mary
    Nov 29 '20 at 0:46
  • @Mary By the one's creating and enforcing the rules. As rules are not in question here, you may want to consider my other question Nov 29 '20 at 0:54

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.