Freedom of expression must have limits and censorship because I believe that in order for everyone's thoughts to be taken into consideration, they must be expressed in a passionate but respectful manner. My definition of free speech is being able to speak your mind and express your thoughts about what is happening in the world around you in a respectful way. We all have the right to express our opinions, but we also need to be careful about our choice of words, reassessing threats, religious beliefs, and expressing our opinion. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”? Get an original essay If a man were to go online and make a video saying he hates LBGYT people and is going to kill them, that comment is irrelevant. This is not allowed because at this point he is commenting on a hate crime and the 1st amendment does not protect hate crimes which may involve, but are not limited to, antigay, racist or sexist. According to the Encyclopedia Britannica article, hate crimes such as racist threats, antigay and sexist slurs are not protected by the 1st Amendment. Like he went online and made a video saying the world was becoming a gay community and he didn't agree with the law allowing same-sex marriages, that's allowed because he expresses his opinion on how he feels about it. . There is a line that is drawn between what is tolerated and what is not; the line is drawn when it begins to thwart fundamental human rights and people's rights to life. We express our thoughts without really knowing if we have gone too far, if we have exceeded our limits. In the case of Elonis v. United States Supreme Court; Elonis was convicted after making subjective threats online, saying things like "I have enough explosives to take care of the State Police and the Sheriff's Department" and "I'll check it out and get a name. Enough elementary schools within a ten mile radius to trigger the most heinous school shooting ever imagined... The only question is... which one? He fought with the government so that the 1st Amendment gave him the intent of the threat and that he did not mean it in a harmful way. Federal courts have said that "actual threats" can be interpreted in so many ways that it doesn't mean they aren't threats; it just says that threats are illegal and harmful, no matter if it's said that way or if it's in jest, it still takes it seriously. Keep in mind: this is just a sample. Get a personalized article from our expert writers now. .Get a Custom EssayFree speech in America hasn't been perfect, you can't shout dangerous things like fire or anything that will freak the crowd out. We can express our opinions, but again, there are lines that are not supposed to be crossed, such as racist, violent, antigay, sexist, etc. Some may say it is not constitutional, but it is constitutional to thwart basic human rights or rights to life..