But this is not to say that there are no limitations as to what can be vocalized. For example, conspiring to commit a crime is illegal. Take for example, a murder. To have a conversation involving the planning of a murder is completely logically unlawful, and although it does mean that it’s a violation of perfect free speech, most would agree that to allow people to collude concerning plans of murder should not be allowed. If it was allowed, people would then be free to openly talk their plans to commit a murder and no one could preventively charge them, because they are granted the right to speak their minds openly and completely. Therefore, there must be limitations to free speech. Although might seem like regulations ruin the definition and purity of our freedom, they actually protect the integrity and ability of our freedoms to prosper and protect the good of society. Nevertheless this is all in the context of tangibility and the internet proves to be a whole separate
But this is not to say that there are no limitations as to what can be vocalized. For example, conspiring to commit a crime is illegal. Take for example, a murder. To have a conversation involving the planning of a murder is completely logically unlawful, and although it does mean that it’s a violation of perfect free speech, most would agree that to allow people to collude concerning plans of murder should not be allowed. If it was allowed, people would then be free to openly talk their plans to commit a murder and no one could preventively charge them, because they are granted the right to speak their minds openly and completely. Therefore, there must be limitations to free speech. Although might seem like regulations ruin the definition and purity of our freedom, they actually protect the integrity and ability of our freedoms to prosper and protect the good of society. Nevertheless this is all in the context of tangibility and the internet proves to be a whole separate