I can't think of any speech that it would do less harm to limit than the limitation would do.
Can you? If you can, I will give a fair effort to CMV.
Can you? If you can, I will give a fair effort to CMV.
> It may be worth stressing, however, that even if one has an extremely strong intellectual commitment to truthseeking and public education, one can still legitimately and in good conscience explore the question of how some knowledge might be harmful. In fact, this very commitment demands that one does not shy away from such an exploration or from reporting openly on the findings.
Another one that's extremely common is use of a trademark. I do not have a free speech right to say "I provide Microsoft-certified computer repair services." We believe there's more harm to society from me going around causing people to believe that than from me being unable to say that.
Another one is unauthorized practice of law. I do not have a free speech right to say "I know how the GPL works and I can represent you in court." We believe it's more important to a free society that when someone says that, they're actually a trained and licensed lawyer who can competently represent you, and that the harm to you from me going in front of a judge and spouting nonsense on your behalf outweighs the harm from me being unable to speak freely about the GPL.
Do you think that these restrictions on free speech are more harmful than the cases they seek to prevent?
But ask yourself, if you're that sure, what's your evidence? I 'd need some strong evidence I was on the right side to hold that absolutist of a belief.
The reason that "free speech" is limited is that limiting it does almost no harm, and allowing it can result in human death.
This actually follows well into the specific example of racist nazi propaganda. The argument is fairly similar; allowing that speech has the chance to, in a more roundabout way, result in human oppression and death. Limiting it isn't great (especially since it often draws some amount of attention to it), but it does seem plausible that by stopping that speech from getting out there, there's less chance of such a movement forming.
It's an example from dicta illustrating the logic of a case since overruled as stating an improperly narrow view of free speech.
There should not be limitations on speech. By your logic we should limit speech on engineering and communism as they also have potential for harming people.
Engineering and communism typically don't, though where they do it should be shut down.
I can see there would be a big difference though in yelping a word in that situation and being directly responsible for the harm it caused (mischief maybe?) and expressing a person's ideas and beliefs.
The analogy you put doesn't work out, unfortunately, because ANY idea can result in human oppression and death. For example, the speech that civil rights leaders spoke and wrote that in a roundabout way caused injuries and deaths at protests motivated by them, the speech that fired up the American Revolution and other revolutions.