Speech Should Be Censored (Anti Freedom of Speech)

I'm looking forward to it. This debate was raised specifically because of the U. S. constitution, but it is not necessarily exclusive to it. I'm addressing freedom of speech on a broader sense where it concerns society, community and government in general. Firstly, I am not saying that all speech should be censored or restricted. I am not saying that the majority of speech should be censored. I am saying, that certain speech should be (and in some cases already has been) censored for the sake of society and because of this precedent, we should examine the very nature of 'freedom of speech' and weigh it against the public good. America for instance, really doesn't support freedom of speech as much as we pretend as I will show in my following arguments. Precedent for censorship: There are many instances were freedom of speech isn't allowed and is punished severely. Now these censorships are reasonable, based on a moral code and instituted democratically so they coincide with my previous assertions. Examples: (. http://www.quora.com...) 1. Copyright law. 2. Libel and slander are outlawed. 3. Threat of violence, death threats, or conspiring to commit a crime without actually doing so are prevented. 4. You are not allowed to shout 'fire' in a public place when there is no fire. 5. You are not allowed to perjure yourself in a court of law. 6. You are not allowed to divulge government secrets, business secrets, patient-client privileges, attorney-client privileges, priest-parishioner privileges or you'll face legal action. 7. You are not allowed to sexually harass people through word or deed. You cannot whisper sweet-nothings to them in an unwanted manner and you are legally barred from commenting on genetic features in a continuous manner after being warned not to. 8. You are not allowed to be verbally abusive to a child. 9. Certain words and depictions are barred from appearing on public television. And there are more censorship laws and limits to free speech concerning prayers in schools, teaching specific doctrine (no creationism) and presenting certain views in sexual education (prevention vs. abstinence). (. http://en.wikipedia.org...) Why Censorship Exists: From the previous examples of censorship as well as many unlisted examples, one can infer that freedom of speech isn't regarded as a paramount civil liberty and sometimes must be sacrificed for the sake of others. Why freedom of speech is censored: (. http://en.wikipedia.org...) 1. National security. (No divulging secrets. ) 2. Personal safety. (Sexual harassment, censorship of media for profanity. Shouting fire. ) 3. Business security (patents, rules against espionage or divulging company secrets. ) 4. Education and Indoctrination (scholastic censorship, media censorship. ) Where else can this rule be applied? Personal safety, national security, business security and the indoctrination of children all present issues with freedom of speech. If our society treats them as paramount civil liberties, then it follows that freedom of speech should be further censored for the sake of preserving life, dignity and safety. 1. If someone is guilty of pedophilia in jail, if that information is leaked to inmates, then it is not only probable, but likely, that the convicted pedophile will face death at the hands of inmates. And while this may seem satisfying to many, it is against the judicial system set in place to protect the innocents. So for the sake of a higher civil liberty (life), guards and lawyers should be barred from revealing the nature of the inmate's crimes to his peers? 2. Also, hateful rhetoric on the part of anti-white or anti-black speakers, demanding for white or black supremacy (or any other race) at the expense of others can cause civil discord and danger. It can lead to executions and death and it indoctrinates (another point) hate into society. By extension, any indoctrination (religious even) should be put under review from this same perspective established by precedent. 3. If sexual harassment is outlawed because it causes emotional distress, then why not certain forms of verbal bullying? (which are outlawed in academic institutions. ) Verbal bullying. Overt Insulting, spewing profanities and being verbally abusive are outlawed in many cases already. Libel and slander are already outlawed, besmirching one's character can also be outlawed. So by extent, even minor offenses can face the same scrutiny and examination to determine if they should be allowed. Verbal abuse is just another form of bullying. Assault is illegal, so should verbal assault be as well? If a democratic vote was held, morally and reasonably, then I say yes. Punitive charges would differ greatly and perhaps the crimes would be considered negligible, but there is still the window for censorship provided by precedent. There are many places where censorship exists and many more where, by extension of the afore-mentioned censorship, it can exist. Not necessarily should, but can. Certain forms of speech will always and should always be maintained. But I find that many people's current view of 'freedom of speech' is outdated and dangerous. Wikileaks, for instance. Burning qurans as well. Or the Westboro Baptist Church's ridiculous notions of freedom of speech. The KKK. The Black Panther party. And even some feminists set on inciting a gender war. We have the established precedent for censorship. So either all of that is illegal and should be barred, or we must agree that in some cases freedom of speech shouldn't be allowed. If we concede this, and establish that safety, life and even some forms of liberty are paramount to freedom of speech, then we must examine all forms of freedom of speech to see if they pass the same test of 'social value. ' Once we've done that, for the preservation of a society, we should examine the current laws, raise questions, address the issue democratically, have moral reason (as defined by the community) and reasonability (to prevent forms of government abuse), before allowing for the possibility and enforcement of censorship. Censorship already does exist, but it is to the benefit of society, not its detriment.