starts here on c-span2. in the meantime we will show you a portion of discussion on the limits of free speech from this mornings "washington journal." >> host: on the facebook page we started the program this morning asking the question about limits. here's jody paterson who wrote i would say that racist hate speech is totally unacceptable some that should be allowed. when just a penny for each and allow some to the more rules on other free speech, jim cook adds the thought of course there are questions, should there be free speech? there's a limit hate speech law, us and incitement. the bill of rights has been

watered down at the federal powers grow on the individual and that greatly declined and then sean, there's this post be any provision of free speech so long as it does not cause harm to any other individual or group or otherwise are not causing harm for breaking the law. these days the government and its entities have restricted these freedoms in many ways. those are just some of the thoughts this morning on this topic of free speech. again this topic or three hours this morning and getting your thoughts on it. again it's based on the first amendment to the constitution. familiar to many of you who watch the program in which part of the enemy goes that it prohibits the abridging the freedom of speech and of the press that goes onto say of elements in the first amendment as well. with that in mind your thoughts on limits of free speech and if you think the army be think there should be to give us your thoughts this morning. on the line -- we did facebook

pages and we read more as a go along. the facebook page at facebook .com/ c-span and the post on twitter. first call this morning is geo from georgia. when talking about free speech at this point. what you think about this idea that there should be limits? >> pedro, i do think, i'm a c-span. i do think there ought to be some limits. i don't think you ought to have hate speech. i'm against that. know what i'm saying? like cursing someone or saying something about their character. i think that should not be allowed, any what i would call mean or hate speech. i'm totally against that. by the way i think trump will be the greatest president.

i think one thing about free speech, i think trump ought to be allowed to attack the media. i let c-span but i think most of the media is far left and not conservative and i think trump ought to have the right and i certainly support him attacking npc, cbs because they do not think they are fair. i don't think anybody ought to be allowed, like pedro, your great person anything nobody ought to be allowed to say something derogatory or call you a name come in, any media. i think that's wrong and told against hate speech and i think that ought to be limited to not say something terrible about you, or c-span or anybody. i'm just totally opposed to hate speech but i think trump is the greatest president in history and of all fired up and energized. >> host: thank you, joe. joe from tucson, arizona. republican line. you are on the topic of limits of free speech. good morning. >> caller: yes, since the

election i've really had a lot of confusion in identifying true news. it's hard for me to find a source. i know they talk to the other day about stress in america and i think i want freedom of the press, but i want the confidence that what i'm hearing is true. it's hard for me to figure that out. i like when the national broadcasting, the ceo and president was on, and he spoke the other day and he identified a source on the radio. i think most americans are under stressed because they don't know what to believe. >> host: s. res. a topic of free speech can you address the free press but what about free speech in this idea should they be limits on it? >> guest: i don't want limits on speech.

i would love to see america where we were kinder in our speech and more honest in our speech. i think that's the responsibility of the individual person to become honest and to become credible. i think that will make a better america for all of us posting you said you don't want limits. do you think they're currently limits on free speech? >> guest: constitutionally, no. >> host: but in everyday practice, experientially, what do you think? >> guest: experientially, i think that people try to do that but i think our government and our society, i don't think that would be allowed. if overstepped boundaries are

just not knowing constitutional law. i think there's enough american people that will pull them back into balance. i have confidence in that. >> host: that's joe in tucson, arizona. again, any thoughts expressed or at least some on this topic of free speech. you can add yours as well. this is ohio, democrat's line. that's where seth is. go ahead. you are on. good morning. >> caller: hi. high. i think you should encourage people to be free in their speech and say exactly how they feel because all we are teaching people today is to hide their hatefulness with manners, and you want to at least know who you're dealing with by allowing them to have free speech so that they don't, you know, make

hateful judgments on your behalf, you know. because all the teaching people today is to hide their hatefulness with manners. that doesn't change who they are on the inside. that's what i think. >> host: using manners are a limited enforcement freedom of speech? >> guest: right. like say i a judge and you are on trial. if i don't like your race, i'm going to make a hateful judgment on your behalf but you will never know that. you will never be able to change that because i'm hiding it with manners. >> host: as far as the way you practice free speech or things like that, do you then tell people or at least talk openly and don't let manners get in a way of things you want to express to other people? >> guest: right. >> host: i'm just saying if this is something you do on your own practice, in your own practice?

>> guest: yeah. i mean, i'm not that free about it. i think it's just, it's better to know who people are then teach them to hide their inner, you know, hate with manners. >> host: sets from ohio. mr. cuny says free speech lets everyone else know what kind of person you are. lots of us are ugly inside. you can add your thoughts there as well @cspanwj. abraham is in burke, virginia, independent line. abraham, go ahead, good morning. >> caller: i was going to say that there should be -- to our national consequences for what we say. i think each person should be held accountable for what they say. the last two calls made a good point. it's better for people to just come out and be honest and let us make an informed decision

about them rather than hide behind their words of kindness, right? and deceive us all. >> host: do you think that happens it on a regular basis, the kindness that deceased totally the person inside? >> guest: right. if you have been an sap endured a woman woman site bless your heart, you know that's not a good thing. so they're hiding either manners when they say such a thing. you know, and i'm sure we can find many more examples of that in our daily lives. >> host: just looking for historical context do you think there are more limits on free speech than when you're growing up or from a period in past history quick do you think there's more limits today? >> guest: no. i think i'm a really don't thik there are more limits today than there were. i was born in 79. i don't think there are more limits today. i think that people are just trying to get by without ruffling too many feathers.

>> host: commanders barked the previous code mentioned, that kind of thing? >> guest: correct. >> host: okay. thanks. alton drew this might also twitter says of this. the existence of the qualifier quote free on speech tells me that there is no such thing. that government meant to put limits on it. he adds, and this is parkway singular limits of free speech that i'm aware of is hate speech. orlando is next. orlando joins us from valley, alabama, independent line. go ahead. you are on. >> caller: i wanted to talk about free speech, but as far as free speech when it comes to people saying their heart and the mind as far as religion goes or varying opinions such as republicans talking to democrats of the always use racist and all of these negative words to call

you out if you don't agree with everything they say. you may say i don't agree with you holding my religious rights. they will call you a racist and that bigot, but those ideas are in the bible and they have been for millions of years but they trtried to discredit you and embarrass you. a lot of the colleges call you down and a lot of young people are taking pictures and calls that they don't really realize, as his teachers are being put on camera. but what they tried all that down, they try to punish the students. but that's the only way the students have the fighting back. and if they don't disrupt the class, they just taking pictures and they're showing, the teacher should open to people saying what they're saying and doing. the free speech, i don't think the schools, i don't think laughing with the teacher to put down somebody with a different opinion, that's what the rally in the backbone of human being

starts in their younger years and in the college. and to be defamed i think if you call somebody a racist, it ought to be a form of discrimination just like using the n-word against a black person if you use racist against a white person and it can be proven untrue, you ought to be able to them in court for defaming you or causing you from getting a job, it can cause you from able to work at a certain place if your band a racist. but that's what i wanted to talk about, the democrats hollow as republicans and called the racist because -- >> good afternoon, everyone. been a while. did you miss me? absolutely. we got a lot to talk about today so let's get right to it. first off i want to knowledge that tragic plane crash that occurred in australia that took the lives of five individuals including for americans. the presidents thoughts and prayers are with the families and the victims and the u.s.