If freedom of speech is a natural right, where, if at all, should lines be drawn, and who should draw them?

All speech is free speech, including harmful speech that may be considered hate speech.

The line in my opinion should be drawn at where speech becomes hurtful or a threat to another person.

There shouldn't be a line. Freedom of speech is what it is. Now when people act on these hate words through action then it should be dealt with.

This one question stirs so many people up. You can't punish someone for beliefs or creed. It will trickle down to a who said she said match at the end of everything.

Actions speak louder then words cause they can cause physical harm. This is a questions that intice to cause division among Americans to keep us off the bigger problems America is facing today. It effects less then 1% of Americans. Yet it is an everyday issue on are media outlets cause it attracts attention. Let's attack housing cost and Rent. Unregulate the market so we can create more condo and townhouses. Prevent big corporations from buying swath of real estate all because a few years ago interest rates won't ever be that low again.

When that speech becomes harassment. Local jurors should draw the line.

The line should be drawn when people are being disrespectful

Natural rights should be drawn to where it would makes sense, it should not be abused and thrown haphazardly at every inconvenience.

Line should be drawn if it causes harm to themselves or some one else.

Freedom of speech is important, but limits might be needed if it harms others or breaks the law. These limits are usually set by laws to balance everyone's rights and safety.

Lines should be drawn when the speech turns into threats, and causes either mental harm or threatens physical harm. The initial line should be drawn by law enforcement.

Lines should be drawn by the government when someone uses these rights to harm others.

The right should be drawn by the individual, everyone should have the freedom to express but if a person is outwardly speaking against you then you should be allowed to speak against them. No one should be allowed to physically remove someones right to speak on something.

should be drawn by the people and that line should be drawn at violence

The lines should be drawn when it involves something that might bring harm to another person and the judicial branch should draw them.

We should draw the line at threats, people outwardly expressing their opinion and shooting other people down. I dont know who should enforce this though.

Freedom of speech should consist of any and all words and speaking that doesn't result in the harm of somebody.

The one who is receiving the speech should be the one who draws the line.

I think as it stands today the lines have been drawn just fine, and if anything the people of the U.S. should be drawing these lines not some old retards in congress.

The line needs to drawn when a legitimate threat, defamation of character, or verbal abuse is involved.

our freedom of speech should not be limited, at all, we live in the land of the free, were allowed freedom of expression, and no one can take that away from us.

Lines shouldn't be drawn on freedoms of speech since its only words. When hateful words develop into actions however, then lines should be drawn.

If it gets violent and people get hurt that is where they should draw the line. I think law enforcement should draw them.

If it gets violent and people get hurt that is where they should draw the line. I think law enforcement should draw them.

If it gets violent and people get hurt that is where they should draw the line. I think law enforcement should draw them.

It should be drawn at criminal, violent speech. Hate speech is a natural right and the drawing of the line should come from Congress.

Simply, whenever a threat or situation to incite violence occurs. Harassment is also not protected under free speech. If there is no harassment or threat, there should be no issue. It is inherently not American to prevent the freedom of others. We’re a melting pot of diverse backgrounds and opinions which should all be heard. Even the stupid ones.

when they are taking over all of our rights we should not have to give up anything.

They should be drawn over people wrecking the ocean with all the gas and stuff that is ruining our wild life.

Impossible question IMO

While I agree that lines could be drawn when it comes to hate speech or things that incite violence, I also think this country is too damn sensitive these days so it would be unfairly drawn no matter where you put it.

Saying something like “dogs are stupid” could and most certainly would offend/trigger someone to an extreme as they defend why they love dogs and how I am a dickless piece of **** . Is what I said considered ok? How about what they said? Who cares. Now switch it to a big topic like Gaza/Israel, Racism, Gay/Trans topics, Religion, etc and people are VERY trigger…  Read more happy

The freedom of speech is a right everyone has and lines should not be drawn.

If the speech leads to danger or harm of the people of this country DIRECTLY, then yes there should be consequences, lawsuits, and a restriction of freedom of speech. Also, in private businesses where it is a private estate, there should be limits considering the constitution and these amendments is more about the federal government's powers and restrictions, rather than the people's restrictions. Also, if it's a private estate, then the people who violate the terms and services of the PRIVATE estate should face allegations and potential lawsuits for their actions.

If the speech is directed at genocide of certain groups of people. That's when the line needs to be drawn. Anything less than that is simply "freedom of speech" and we should honor that.

When freedom of speech can turn into hurting others, mainly at a physical level.

i feel that the people and the law should know when that line has been drawn.

There should be lines drawn at verbal harassment, abuse, and other verbal assaults.

Lines should be drawn to stop the spreading of outright and intentionally false information; lines should be drawn regarding medical and legal advice; lines should be drawn regarding public safety. As always with democracy, the lines should be drawn by the people.

Bigotry, threats of violence and incitement need to have consequences or be removed

Also,and broadcast opinions should be held to higher standards, including social media posts and comments.

Lines should be drawn at hate speech and terrorism promotion by the government.

no lines at all

if there´s anything you can´t say without legal repercussions then you don´t have true freedom of speech.

no lines

Free speech is just that: free. There should be no line.

freedom of schmeech

If freedom of speech is a natural right, which it's not, lines should be drawn when speech becomes dangerous. The people who decide where these lines are drawn should be people who have personally dealt with hate speech or maybe like the US Holocaust Memorial Museum and NAACP. Either way I think the government has a responsibility to stop hateful ideas, like Nazism, from regaining momentum like it has in recent years.

It wasn’t very long ago that people in the USA could joke about their differences and take a joke as well. Now, suddenly no one is joking. Light humor has turned to dark sarcasm, and we’re losing the American sense of humor that we were once world famous for. Whether it’s media personalities, Hollywood celebrities, politicians, educators, institutions, agencies of government, or anyone else with a platform of influence over a large audience, they have a responsibility that comes with their privilege of having such a platform. They owe it to the people to be honest. To just…  Read more tell the truth. It is not complicated. Yet, they choose not to do that. There may have been a time when the media had enough integrity to associate their liberty with the cornerstones of our own. But they have turned on us and become a mechanism of mass manipulation. A tool of the decadent, employed only to control the mindset of the population.They understand the power of their platform. They understand the power of belief. They know it doesn’t matter if that belief is in the truth, or in falsehoods, it wields the same power. Control the people’s beliefs, and you control the people. It’s not a new concept, but does have modern methods being applied to it. The people behind the spotlight want to direct our lives and choose our opinions for us. They tell us what we should say, how we should act, what we should think, what we should do, and bear no responsibility whatsoever for any of the outcome. They are in favor of limiting our constitutional rights protected by the first and second amendments, but even approaching the idea of limiting their sacred freedom of the press is to speak the unspeakable. A treasonous attack on democracy itself. That’s what they want people to believe, and millions of them do. They launched their attack on democracy long ago, when they abandoned the information business and entered into the influence business. There is no Mainstream network left in the United States with any integrity. They hide their deception and treachery behind the shield of the first amendment, and want everyone to believe they are the glue holding our democracy together, while in reality, they are the disease that is destroying it. It has been my observation that we are being directed like actors in a really bad reality show somewhere between the Brady Bunch and The Twilight Zone. We are being prompted to hate, and instructed in what we should think, how we should feel, and how we should feel about each other. Those who provoke us know full well that they are responsible, yet it has become taboo to call them out on it. They have convinced us that their first amendment rights are the only thing between us and Fascism. I don’t see any evidence of that. In fact, by all appearances, it is their gross abuse of those rights that has poisoned our culture, separated us, and continues to fuel the divide. We have Americans unfriending their parents, their grandparents, their siblings, people they grew up with and once held in high regard, and for what? Some phony ideals that we have all been convinced make us superior to one another? What is to be gained through all of this malice? I see nothing to be gained, and much to be lost.The MSM is the only entity in this country with a free pass to yell fire in a theater, or anything else they want to yell for that matter. They are not accountable for the damage their lies do, and have already done. You have the option to sue them in two courts. The court of public opinion, which they will win 100% of the time because that is their playground, or the court of whoever has the most money, which they will also win because they have the most money. Trump said they are the enemy of the people, and truer words have never been spoken. They put a lot of care into what people believe, but no care whatsoever for the truth. They are the enemy, but not the worst. The people have become their own worst enemy for buying into the bull **** , and placing the media’s right to lie above their own right to know the truth. This is not going to end well. The divide they have fostered grows ever wider, and neither side of the street is capable of humbling themselves and looking at the big picture, or objective enough to connect the dots and see what the picture even is. They are instructed to hate and that’s what they do. They are satisfied with the opinions that are assigned to them through the media, and have no desire to form their own. Why go to all that trouble when the media tells them everything they need to know? I believe in free speech for every individual citizen. I have always been of the opinion; let them speak so we can separate the idiots from the intellectuals. However, corporate free speech needs to be monitored and regulated much more closely. When you have a national audience of millions of people, you have a responsability far greater than that of a soapbox preacher standing on the corner shouting about the end of the world. It is my opinion that if we do not reign them in with heavy fines and license forfeitures for deliberately deceptive reporting, they will bring about the end of the USA as we know it. I'm not talking about a slap on the wrist with an out ofd court settelement that they can easily pay and keep right on going. I'm talking about any MSM network that is proven to make false claims for political purposes being fined two hundred billion dollars for first offense. Five hundred billion for second offense. Permanent forfeiture of broadcasting license for third strike. That might sound extreme, but the only way they are going to objectively report the truth is if we simply force them to. Every right protectred by the constitution has limitations. There is a difference between exercising rights and abusing them. The MSM has flipantly engaged in such gross abuse of the right of the press that it's caused damage to the social fabric of our nation that may be beyond repair at this point. If we don't start holding them accountable, they will continue with their destructive deception until there is nothing left to destroy.