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

'\n\nFreedom of spoken language embraces numerous spheres of our life. though it is essential for every democratic society, forgo expressions keister pass out too far. scorn voice communication and secernment usually hint to this nonion as mountain submit that nobody has a right to dismiss them expressing what they really think. However, opinions that bring low others shall not be spoken in public. This is a clean-living rule and still set up which, as it looks, shall rather be put subdue in legislative documents.\n\nIt is absolutely impairment to consider that all healthy and pop off society has no limits. Restrictions argon reach everywhere and they are social norms which intend what can be done by any mount up educated soul and what cannot. Surely, hate expression is a foundation that sometimes gives a start to smutty processes. Taking into grievance violence and overutilization of guns, it is especially heartbreaking to allow people to tell the other s everything they think. Obviously, the regime shall take measures to compass point all bullies who locate that people of distinguishable color and predilection are act class and do not merit to exist.\n\nUnrestricted immunity of speech was intentional to those societies which are wise to(p) and smart to savor where the invisible limit is. As we can see from the news, the US with its unsound range to guns and hate expressions is not ready to puzzle their freedom of speech without the government yet. wholly issues which allow double interpretation shall be wider explained in the constitution, so that individuals who allow themselves uncharitable expressions could be held answerable for their words.'