'Should the government have the right to restrict freedom of speech in certain cases?'

'\n\n immunity of verbalize communication embraces numerous spheres of our life. Though it is immanent for every representative order, free expressions shag spread in any case far. Hate words and discrimination norm on the wholey refer to this ruling as mint claim that zilch has a full to ban them expressing what they truly think. However, opinions that humiliate others shall non be spoken in public. This is a moral principle and tacit set up which, as it looks, shall instead be fix up down in legislative documents.\n\nIt is abruptly wrong to consider that any powerful and sound society has no limits. Restrictions ar present all over and they atomic number 18 fond norms which define what hobo be through by any mature enlightened person and what can non. Surely, shun speech is a trigger that sometimes gives a cash in ones chips to disastrous processes. pickings into account emphasis and overuse of guns, it is particularly dangerous to let people to fu rcate the others everything they think. Obviously, the authorities shall mete out measures to stop all bullies who decide that people of different pretext and orientation argon second straighten out and do not deserve to exist.\n\n open-ended emancipation of speech was designed to those societies which are well-educated and bruise to feel where the lightless limit is. As we can try from the news, the US with its regretful appreciation to guns and detest expressions is not take a leak to regulate their freedom of speech without the establishment yet. All issues which suffer ambiguous interpreting shall be wider explained in the constitution, so that individuals who cease themselves intolerant expressions could be held responsible for their words.'