I am of the opinion that restrictions on freedom of speech causes more problems than it prevents.

Some people can abuse absolute freedom of speech to incite hatred and violence, but even so, the basic right to state your heartfelt opinion on any issue including racial, sexual or religious prejudices should not be muzzled by repressive laws.

The ''suppression of expression'' only serves to fester prejudiced views and stifles open discussion which can often dispel many misguided beliefs and unfounded fears.

Laws cannot change 'hearts and minds', only open, civilised and candid discussion can identify the true feelings of a nation's people and when rational debate is entered into by reasonable, well meaning people it's usually the case that a harmonious compromise can be achieved thus leading to a better and more peaceful society in which we all feel comfortable with each other.

I think that was my comment in the other debate so let me clarify.

There are indeed restrictions on free speech which I agree with - such as libel and slander laws, abetting criminal behavior by giving out private information for identity theft, etc. I also believe people should be held accountable for whatever they say, such as if they falsely yell "fire!" in a crowded theatre and cause people to get trampled and hurt because of it.

However, I indeed do object to the practice in some foreign countries of making certain words or symbols or types of speech banned. I think that's hypocritical. In fact, were Nazis or some similar group able to take power and ban political dissent along the exact same lines of reasoning we'd all cry foul and say they were squashing free speech. You can't have it both ways. If people want to say ugly things let them say ugly things. It's up to the rest of us to counter them and hold them accountable for saying it.

Note, so although I voted in the Absolute freedom of speech column that heading doesn't accurately reflect what this side of the debate stands for. One can support free speech without denying libel, slander, ramifications, etc.

"In Denmark we have what we call the racism paragraph. The racism paragraph limits the constitutional right of freedom of speech."

I shall quote the 1st Amendment of the Bill of Rights !

Amendment I. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Do you read any where in there limiting the right to free speech ?

Limiting the right to free speech shows you are not a Socialist but a Communist but not much difference between the two.

The most significant problem I have with the suppression of free speech is that historically it has been used to greatest effect to support identity based discrimination. Once it is accepted that we can curtail speech for the greater good, it becomes a legitimate exercise of state authority to do so and the concept of the greater good is entirely dependent upon who holds power. It is is not popularly accepted that censorship is a permissible exercise of state authority, and especially is a strong sentiment of principle can be developed, then it will be more difficult for censorship to be abused.

I am also not persuaded that penalizing individuals for expressing their views actually prevents them from organizing and disseminating their views. This is particularly the case where penalties are fairly minor and the views are coming from an organization which can merely budget the cost of their speech into their finances. The relative anonymity afforded by internet forums, particularly on non-domestic hosts, or through traditional means of information distribution such as fliers, posters, or graffiti makes restrictions fairly ineffectual. Moreover, legally penalizing expression adds fuel to the persecution complexes often at work behind bigotry and can give greater credence to a group than they otherwise would have.

I also think that censorship is inherently antithetical to democracy. However repugnant the view may be, it is inconsistent with representative forms of government that it should be oppressed through the power and authority of the state. Nor should we consider the speech the ultimate concern. This strikes me as slapping a band-aid on a gunshot and enables thinking that out of hearing means it's not a problem. But what gives prejudice its momentum is not the mere ideas, but the conditions which exist that make those ideas appeal to certain people. Typically, those conditions include de facto segregation due to social inequality, socioeconomic differential, educational differential, etc. If we are serious about countering bigotry then we tackle it at its roots, not by muzzling it after its grown.

While I'm as liberal as they come, and I do believe nobody SHOULD be a hateful, discriminatory bigoted d!ck, I think everybody should have the RIGHT to be one. Otherwise you open "pandora's box" as far as what is or isn't acceptable and who gets to decide that and on what authority?