Do you consider the curtailment of freedom of expression to be legitimate in any situations?

[Tooting Carmen]

Let us discuss.

[Tooting Carmen]

Points of issue (the website keeps on freezing whenever I try to introduce a poll):

-Swearing
-Pornography/nudity
-Hate speech against a person or group due to their ethnicity/nationality
-Hate speech against a person or group due to their sexual orientation
-Denial or downplaying of a historical event or atrocity
-Libel
-Invasion of private lives, e.g. exposing a celebrity having an affair
-Criticism or mockery of a person or group's political beliefs
-Criticism or mockery of a person or group's religious beliefs
-Promotion of unhealthy/dangerous products, food or lifestyles
-Incitement to violence
-Shouting 'fire' where there is none

[Kamal900]

No. Hate speech is freedom of speech, and it should never be compromised for any groups of people whatsoever. Harassment and threats however are against the law in the constitutional rights of free speech in America. The holocaust should never be protected by the so called "holocaust denial" laws, and really, if the historical event was true then it doesn't need any law to protect from people questioning it. Truth does not fear investigation, only lies.

[Tooting Carmen]

No. Hate speech is freedom of speech, and it should never be compromised for any groups of people whatsoever. Harassment and threats however are against the law in the constitutional rights of free speech in America. The holocaust should never be protected by the so called "holocaust denial" laws, and really, if the historical event was true then it doesn't need any law to protect from people questioning it. Truth does not fear investigation, only lies.

Yes, I oppose Holocaust Denial laws for three reasons:

(1) It is dangerous and misguided to criminalise discussion of a historical event or atrocity anyway.
(2) It turns deniers into martyrs and feeds the very conspiratorialism and hatred that such laws are supposed to mitigate against.
(3) Much of what is classified as 'Holocaust Denial' is not even denial as such - just claiming that not as many as six million Jews were killed by the Nazis.

[Tooting Carmen]

Anyone else?

[JamesBond007]

Anyone else?

Political correctness is portrayed as an act of enforcing civilization on hate-filled barbarians, but in fact it is a barbaric attack on the most important pillar of civilzation itself, free speech. The idea of 'hate crimes' lays the foundation for suppressing freedom of speech. Liberals are fascists. While liberals rightly denounce totalitarianism of the right, they are quite acclimated to similar behavior on the left. From speech codes to economic regulation up the ass, from mandatory seat belts to mandatory integration, liberal fascism lacks only the goose step and the nazi salute. Liberals have turned words, rationality and the world upside down. For liberals, "tolerance" is intolerance of speech liberals don't like; "social justice" is unjustly pulling down the successful to the level of the unsuccessful; "exploitation" is the creation of a wealthy capitalist society in which even the poor are more wealthy than most people in socialist societies; "freedom" is a government by liberal fascists; "peace" is unilateral disarmament in the face of a totalitarian enemy; and "love" is hatred of anyone who is not a liberal. A hate crime is an Orwellian thought crime prosecuting a man more strongly for committing a crime over an emotion he has no control over hate compared to a man who is charged more leniently for committing crime for a motive he does have control over namely greed.

Hate: According to liberals, an undesirably-negative state of mind, usually exhibited for no good reason toward members of groups to which one does not belong; actually, the kind of emotion which sensible people exhibit toward bad things (as they might exhibit toward blacks because of their high crime rate and low achievement level), and which liberals exhibit in tremendous abundance toward anyone who questions their dogmas.

[Tooting Carmen]

Political correctness is portrayed as an act of enforcing civilization on hate-filled barbarians, but in fact it is a barbaric attack on the most important pillar of civilzation itself, free speech. The idea of 'hate crimes' lays the foundation for suppressing freedom of speech. Liberals are fascists. While liberals rightly denounce totalitarianism of the right, they are quite acclimated to similar behavior on the left. From speech codes to economic regulation up the ass, from mandatory seat belts to mandatory integration, liberal fascism lacks only the goose step and the nazi salute. Liberals have turned words, rationality and the world upside down. For liberals, "tolerance" is intolerance of speech liberals don't like; "social justice" is unjustly pulling down the successful to the level of the unsuccessful; "exploitation" is the creation of a wealthy capitalist society in which even the poor are more wealthy than most people in socialist societies; "freedom" is a government by liberal fascists; "peace" is unilateral disarmament in the face of a totalitarian enemy; and "love" is hatred of anyone who is not a liberal. A hate crime is an Orwellian thought crime prosecuting a man more strongly for committing a crime over an emotion he has no control over hate compared to a man who is charged more leniently for committing crime for a motive he does have control over namely greed.

Hate: According to liberals, an undesirably-negative state of mind, usually exhibited for no good reason toward members of groups to which one does not belong; actually, the kind of emotion which sensible people exhibit toward bad things (as they might exhibit toward blacks because of their high crime rate and low achievement level), and which liberals exhibit in tremendous abundance toward anyone who questions their dogmas.

And what about other types of restrictions of speech in modern democracies, like over swearing, pornography, libel or invasions of privacy?

[JamesBond007]

And what about other types of restrictions of speech in modern democracies, like over swearing, pornography, libel or invasions of privacy?

Swearing and pornorgraphy are ok but there should be systems in place like rated R and X for movies and music so that parents can screen things for their children. Also, electronics like computers, cell phones and kindles should have parental controls. Libel maybe should be against the law like it currently is. I have not done a great deal of thinking about the libel issue admittedly.

[Tooting Carmen]

Swearing and pornorgraphy are ok but there should be systems in place like rated R and X for movies and music so that parents can screen things for their children. Also, electronics like computers and kindles should have parental controls. Libel maybe should be against the law like it currently is. I have not done a great deal of thinking about the libel issue admittedly.

What about so-called privacy laws as exist in e.g. France, where journalists are strictly forbidden from writing about the private lives of politicians and certain other public figures?

[The Lawspeaker]

Again: I don't believe in equality under the law. There should be no freedom of speech for migrants and any insult (written, in gesture or in speech) aimed at the local population should be punished with extreme harshness and brutality.

This is where I draw the line when it comes to free speech for the native population:

-Pornography in a public setting or when likely to be accessed by minors
-Libel
-Invasion of private lives, e.g. exposing a celebrity having an affair
-Promotion of unhealthy/dangerous products, food or lifestyles (which would include attempts to force homosexuality on children)
-Shouting 'fire' where there is none

I would add another thing to it:
-Attempts to destabilise or break-up the Union or the country when acting "alone" or with others while actively supported by a foreign party or government and in the case of the latter, no proof of foreign involvement is necessary. I would consider those to be acts of sedition and since that is such a severe crime, I believe the punishment ought to be reflect its nature: sedition is treason and traitors deserve to die.

For the Italic text, I believe that these are matters best left to private individuals taking the responsible party to court. No need to involve the police in that.