I feel that our constitutional right to voice our opinions should not be a cause for nasty remarks?

people don't insult you because you are exercising your right to free speech, they insult you because you opinion is different to theirs, which threatens their fragile egos.

people cross the line when they attack/criticise the person, instead of the person's opinion.

No because then you would be a hypocrite, You can't have freedom speech as long as you only say certain things then it can't really count as free speech, If they are making threatening comments then that is not acceptable but they should be free to believe that your an idiot if they wish and if they act like that saying insults then they usually only make themselves look silly anyway

Well it isn't right but remember that along with your freedom of speech comes the freedom of others to speak.

The internet is full of people who feel that there are no consequences because no one knows who they truly are. When you post in a public forum you have to accept that you will receive comments that you didn't want to hear.

Arq.

The polarization of opinion and simplified categorization are ridiculous from a one-on-one way of searching at issues. Even on the Christian Councils (eg. Nicea, Chalcedon, etc) there have been vast alterations of opinion and nuance, and they spent a lot of time wrestling with subject matters. We regrettably have succumbed to simplify-ing different positions for one of those causes: a million. turning out to be a lot less complicated "straw adult men" OR "weak adult men" (there's a large difference, see clinical American article weblink, below) to debunk and thereby advance our personal position 2. turning out to be an ecosystem of worry concerning absolutely expressing perspectives and to that end probably hindering genuine wrestling with questions IN ALL THEIR COMPLEXITY. it will be suggested that that is end results of the what Noam Chomsky stated as "production Consent". Chomsky's imperative premise became that - instead of the full type of recommendations/evaluations (say, from a million to 100) - you genuinely decrease the variety and contemporary suggested truncated variety (say, 40 5 to 60) because the full variety (a pretend a million to 100), to that end limiting the communicate and retaining as illegitimate something that would want to fall outside that pretend variety (i.e., debunking as a remember for sure recommendations/evaluations a million to 40 4, & sixty one to 100), to that end making it a lot less complicated to win your argument and bypass human beings in accordance on your own time table.

In general I agree. But I also feel the need to point out that nasty remarks also fall within the constitutional right to free speech.

It goes both ways, unfortunately.

I disagree. If somebody, for example, starts telling me about how they believe all black people should be killed simply because of their race, i strongly believe it is my right to tell them how much of a ******** they are.

Freedom of speech means we can both applaud the ideas we love and criticise the ideas we hate. Each side of the spectrum is as vital as the other.

By the way, i consider myself liberal and i am a strong advocate of free speech.

Yes we have all the right to voice our opinion, even if they sound ridiculous to some, I have heard some stupid statements but I feel too stupid for the people who have made them to remark on them.

So, you have a constitutional right to free speech and to voice your opinion, but anyone that disagrees with you doesn't?

Um, okay.

although it's not a nice thing to do, they are exercising their freedom of speech. not everyone is nice here.

well that statement is hypocritical...if you have the right to voice your opinon then we have the right to disagree even if you find our remarks nasty its our right as much as yours.