Should we limit Freedom of Speech?

trollA few years ago, the NY general assembly was considering a bill — The Internet Protection Act — intended to protect people from undue harassment and false statements that the anonymous sometimes make — think cyber bullying. The act, had it passed, would have amended the civil rights law, which clearly isn’t anything too many legislators nor their constituents get overly excited about. Still, the issue is something that needs a conversation.


7 Comments Add yours

  1. cshowers says:

    This is very thought provoking, but regardless of what kinds of laws they put on the books, there will still be those who anonymously leave bullying comments. After all, bullies have always existed, and they have always operated in the shadows, carefully tormenting those who are weaker, while hiding their actions from those who are stronger and would stop them if they knew what was going on.

    I am unwilling to go along with anything that would remove our first ammendment right to freedom of speech. After all, once we allow the government to take away that right, the next thing to go would be freedom of press as well. As I watch the current happenings in our political process, I can easily see someone like Donald Trump or Hilary Clinton limiting what is allowed to be published, so that all the people hear is propaganda.

    It’s only been nearly eight decades since a charismatic politician, named Adolf Hitler, fed into the anger and fears of his fellow countrymen, and led them on a murderous course that resulted in the deaths of more than six million Jewish men, women and children. They were looked upon as illegal aliens, preventing the good people of Germany from progressing as much as they thought they could have, if these people hadn’t entered their country, unwanted. Sound familiar?

    Then, of course, there are those, who think they know what’s best for the people of their country, so they tend to bury the truth about what really goes on in government, opting to only share the things that make them look better, and that make their opponents look bad.

    Either one of these options is a dangerous one for a nation that has enjoyed freedom for more than two hundred years. Therefore, I will err on the side of enjoying the freedom of speech and the freedom of press, for to lose either of them would plunge us into utter darkness, and the loss of all other freedoms as well.

  2. 83unsungheroes says:

    I actually feel a little bit sorry for anonymous trolls in the sense that it feels like they don’t have enough conviction in what they’re saying or else just have nothing better to do than try to be offensive. Great post!

  3. Bigdaddy says:

    I like your thoughts.

  4. Kristin says:

    Interesting. I really don't think it would limit things that much. As you said people would just make fake accounts.

  5. Anonymous says:

    Just found your blog. Your writing is very thought provoking. I donlt know what to think about this. As a blogger don;t you have the ability to limit those types of comments? As far as slander though where businesses are concerned they should be able to refute nasty comments. Then again,i guess you should too.

  6. Anonymous says:

    Intersting … I'll have to check back later and see if you delete this since I'm anonymous. But it's only cbecasue i can't remember the password for my Google account. Not becasue I don;t like you. Anyway, this is interesting. I'll have to read more about it. It's true that being anonymous allows a person to say things they wouldn't say if their identity was known.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s