Should everyone have a right to express their own opinion?

[Lillorainen]

Yes. If you go on shutting down every opinion that could potentially offend anyone, you have to get rid of discussing political (or societal) topics entirely, because whenever anyone voices their opinion, there will always be anybody around who will feel offended by it.
Funnily enough, saying, "The right to express one's opinion should be restricted!" is nothing else but expressing an opinion as well. And stating, that a particular group should not being given the right to express their opinion, will always lead to disagreements as to what particular group this should be ("Commies!" - "No, fascists!" - "No, people who disrespect cats!" - "No, people who think pineapples belong on pizza!" - "Screw it - simply everyone who disagress with me, because everyone should know, that I'm right, anyways!"). See where this is going? ^^

[Vivolkha]

One should be allowed to express an opinion as long as it is not libel, slander, a direct threat of violence, or continuous harassment. While uncivil speech is objectionable and should be condemned, the speaker should not be arrested unless it qualifies as something along the lines of what I listed above.

With that being said, that guy who thought the odd death was 'funny' is a scumbag and should be condemned as one.

Who decides what constitutes slander or libel or even continuous harassment? Inevitably, the threshold is blurry. How is abuse of these kind of laws prevented?

[Cekoviu]

Yes, but that doesn't mean you have the right to be an ass and not get called out on it. This is really simple.

[Purgatio]

One should be allowed to express an opinion as long as it is not libel, slander, a direct threat of violence, or continuous harassment. While uncivil speech is objectionable and should be condemned, the speaker should not be arrested unless it qualifies as something along the lines of what I listed above.

With that being said, that guy who thought the odd death was 'funny' is a scumbag and should be condemned as one.

Who decides what constitutes slander or libel or even continuous harassment? Inevitably, the threshold is blurry. How is abuse of these kind of laws prevented?

Just to be clear, you're not suggesting repealing libel and harassment laws just because the threshold is ambiguous or there are gray areas in enforcement, right?

[Necroghastia]

Sure. They're not entitled to a platform or to be free from criticism, however, nor are they entitled to their own facts.

[Vivolkha]

Who decides what constitutes slander or libel or even continuous harassment? Inevitably, the threshold is blurry. How is abuse of these kind of laws prevented?

Just to be clear, you're not suggesting repealing libel and harassment laws just because the threshold is ambiguous or there are gray areas in enforcement, right?

Defamation/libel laws are an unreasonable threat to freedom of speech. These laws are immensely prone to abuse and essentially used by powerful elements in society to protect themselves, for example by threatening legal actions after being justifiably accused of falsifying a curriculum (as in Spain) or rightfully calling a group Nazi. Also, this as well. Feeling "offended" does not equal "having your rights violated". At all. These laws should not exist.

In case of harassment laws, they can be reasonably justified, but depends on writing and interpretation (as with any law, honestly).

Furthermore, I stand by my previous quotation.

[Necroghastia]

Just to be clear, you're not suggesting repealing libel and harassment laws just because the threshold is ambiguous or there are gray areas in enforcement, right?

Defamation/libel laws are an unreasonable threat to freedom of speech. These laws are immensely prone to abuse and essentially used by powerful elements in society to protect themselves, for example by threatening legal actions after being justifiably accused of falsifying a curriculum (as in Spain) or rightfully calling a group Nazi. Also, this as well. Feeling "offended" does not equal "having your rights violated". At all. These laws should not exist.

In case of harassment laws, they can be reasonably justified, but depends on writing and interpretation (as with any law, honestly).

Furthermore, I stand by my previous quotation.

I don't think you understand what defamation and libel are. If I publish something that, for example, falsely claims you run a human trafficking ring out of your place of business, do you not think there should be a legal recourse?

[Democratic Empire of Romania]

Deffinitely yes

[Destriustan]

Yes. It is a fundamental right for one to express their own opinion. Those who wish to control people's opinions aren't the best of people.

[Dangine]

Yes, everyone has the right to express their own opinions but it depends on how you express them.

[Galloism]

Yes, but that doesn't mean you have the right to be an ass and not get called out on it. This is really simple.

Indeed. Such call outs are also generally offensive to the person being offensive, and that's ok.

All important speech is offensive to someone.

[The Black Forrest]

Freedom of expression is not freedom from consequences.

You have a right to express your opinion. Just as everyone else has the right to tell you your opinion is a pile of horseshit. Even more so if you are trying to belittle and or piss people off.

Opinions are a dime a dozen anyway. What was the quote? Opinions are like assholes; everybody has one.....

[The Emerald Legion]

I saw this reply by a person to a comment that shared his/her experience of facing the ‘odd’ death of a close one. The person who replied thought it was quite funny—the ‘odd’ manner in which the close one of the commenter has died—that (s)he decided to fight off anyone who disagreed with him/her strongly, which obviously there were many who were quite upset.

There can be limits. If someone came into the church during the funeral and started insulting and mocking the deceased and laughing at the grief of the mourners, then I'm sure plenty of folk would say that really isn't acceptable.

Impolite perhaps. And you can be sure to have made some enemies in the process. But 100% an acceptable thing to do.

That's the thing. Impoliteness, Rudeness, And even yes, Hate are utterly and completely acceptable.

What they are not is pleasant, or Optimal. But the world is neither pleasant nor optimal at all times.

[Cesken]

I saw this reply by a person to a comment that shared his/her experience of facing the ‘odd’ death of a close one. The person who replied thought it was quite funny—the ‘odd’ manner in which the close one of the commenter has died—that (s)he decided to fight off anyone who disagreed with him/her strongly, which obviously there were many who were quite upset.

The person who replied stated, “I have a right to express my opinion, don’t I?” This got me thinking, do we [have a right to express our opinion if it hurts others]? If we upset other people by saying something ‘extremely offensive’ to a person or a group, do we have a right to express our opinion?

I feel that if a certain statement has the potential of hurting some people deeply, then it’s better to withhold that opinion from the public rather than express it. We have the rights to hold our own opinion, and maybe even asserverate it, but not go and force it or ‘attack’ others with it. It’s probably not best if we continue to defend that statement, as we may hurt others with our ignorance.

Then again, if someone asks for people’s opinions on the matter, then they should probably get what they’re asking for—the opinions they seek to hear no matter how wrong they may be.

It’s a mixed up thinking from me, and I can’t weight it out properly, so I’d like to hear some solid opinions from the NSG community.

Yes, the only time they shouldn't is if said opinion or idea is a danger to the State.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

Yes, although I believe there’s a time and place for everything. Also, others have the right to call you out if it your opinion is deemed wrong.

[Costa Fierro]

The ideal answer is no. The unfortunate answer is that "yes, but others are free to criticise or call out your opinion".

As some of you can tell, I have an immense dislike for those who believe they have a right to express an opinion unchallenged.

[Kombinita Socialisma Demokratio]

The only limit should be no encouraging violence.

[The Emerald Legion]

The ideal answer is no. The unfortunate answer is that "yes, but others are free to criticise or call out your opinion".

As some of you can tell, I have an immense dislike for those who believe they have a right to express an opinion unchallenged.

The ideal answer is everyone being free to speak. You have a right to speak your opinion even if it hurts or offends another. They have a right to then speak saying that your opinion is dickish and they don't like you anymore.

[Purgatio]

The ideal answer is no. The unfortunate answer is that "yes, but others are free to criticise or call out your opinion".

As some of you can tell, I have an immense dislike for those who believe they have a right to express an opinion unchallenged.

I mean, you literally are allowed to express an opinion, not unchallenged obviously but that's not what the OP's talking about, just the right to express your opinion. You can obviously disagree and express your own opinion and refute the view if you can.

[Costa Fierro]

The ideal answer is everyone being free to speak.

That's where you're wrong.

Only people with educated and relevant opinions pertaining to a particular subject should be able to speak. Anyone else is just a layman who has no business commenting on things that they have no knowledge of.

[Grinning Dragon]

The ideal answer is everyone being free to speak.

That's where you're wrong.

Only people with educated and relevant opinions pertaining to a particular subject should be able to speak. Anyone else is just a layman who has no business commenting on things that they have no knowledge of.

Nah, he/she is correct. Your reply comes off as being elitist. Such beliefs such as yours, are as if someone died and made them god.

[Korladis]

As long as their opinions aren't racist, homophobic, or detrimental to society then there's no problem. Anyone who holds any of the aforementioned opinions should not be allowed to speak their mind, however.

[Cekoviu]

As long as their opinions aren't racist, homophobic, or detrimental to society then there's no problem. Anyone who holds any of the aforementioned opinions should not be allowed to speak their mind, however.

Racist and homophobic are somewhat easier to determine, but how exactly do you propose "detrimental to society" be judged? Seems like a recipe for disaster.

[Neanderthaland]

As long as their opinions aren't racist, homophobic, or detrimental to society then there's no problem. Anyone who holds any of the aforementioned opinions should not be allowed to speak their mind, however.

And who decides what is detrimental to society?

Because whoever you give that power to now controls all speech.

[Korladis]

As long as their opinions aren't racist, homophobic, or detrimental to society then there's no problem. Anyone who holds any of the aforementioned opinions should not be allowed to speak their mind, however.

Racist and homophobic are somewhat easier to determine, but how exactly do you propose "detrimental to society" be judged? Seems like a recipe for disaster.

When I say detrimental to society I mean people who are advocating violence against other groups, sexual harassment/assault, or those that wish to engage in criminal behavior.