Does freedom of speech really exist.

Remove all ads!

You can insult somebody all you want provided what you say about them is true. You can even shout somebody down if they're making a statement if you want. However when asked to leave the premises (provided you're on public property) because of shouting down somebody you must do it or you can be arrested for tresspassing.

Freedom of speech does work and you are entitled to it whenever you want however just because you're exercising your right to freedom of speech doesn't make you immune to other laws. You have freedom of speech but everyone else has freedom to ignore.

 

Wait - how is killing the neighbours cat 'speech'? That would be freedom of action - a totally different thingy.

But you should be able to talk about killing the neighbour's cat all you like

 

As George Gordon Battle Liddy once said,"Walking up to Ted Kennedy and relieving my self on his leg would be the perfect expression of how I feel about him." So I would imagine that you must draw the line somewhere. I think the answer to the question is, freedom of any kind is not free and it comes with great responsibility. I think that Michelle Malkin, like the Dixie Chicks, found out that exercising freedom of speech has a cost attached to it. Most freedoms do. Michelle Malkin is free to produce her own outlett to express her views. No media company is obligted to provide her with a platform to express her views from. She is free to express herself all day long. If youTube will not help her bring her message to the masses she is free to form her own company and compete with them in the open market. This has nothin to do with her being denied her freedom. If anything it highlights her options in a free society.

 

If you are free to hurt my personality then I am free to hurt your body. But it is not a good idea. However, it is forbidden by laws. Insulting is not different from beating. One is the psychological and the other one is the physical way of doing the same thing.

 

Not here, you're not, at least legally. One is words, the other is assault. If I deliberately say something that I know will upset you to the point of making you want to commit a crime, you just might be able to get off in court, but other than thatyou have no protection. The law is based on the idea that mature people should have grasped the kindergarten lesson of "sticks and stones may break my bones, but WORDS CAN NEVER HURT ME" (emphasis mine). If you haven't, you'll be the one to end up in jail, not the person who does not more than say something.

Actually, it is. A repeated pattern of extreme insults can turn into psychological assault over time, but if you're talking about flying into a rage over one offhand remark, I think it's time to grow a thicker skin.

[ October 19, 2006, 19:57: Message edited by: Rallymama ]

 

Actually no. If I offend you verbaly and your response is physical harm, you will go to jail and I will go free.
unless in extreme cases where I deliberately mock you into a fight.

the only option you have legaly to my offence is, if its in public, to accuse me of slander and proof it, or return the verbal offence, or simply ignore it.

Freedom of speech, is limited to speech, it dosn't cover physical actions like hitting me or killing neighbors cats.

 

Freedom of speech ends where it becomes to be insult and this is the last thing I will say about that topic.

 

I think one of the biggest problems we face regarding free speech anymore is that many people seem to think that others should feel honored and privileged to have bestowed upon them the speaker’s wisdom. Whatever happened to the phrases “I think”and “ In my opinion”? Witness a case right here – Argohir obviously has very strong feelings about what “freedom of speech” SHOULD mean, and refuses to accept that something else has been implemented in the law.

I am very glad that I don’t yet live in a country where a single stubborn, ignorant, loudmouth can impose his opinions on the the populace at large but, to judge from the article that TGS posted at the beginning of this thread, that day might be uncomfortably close.

 

But you do live in a country where the Pres will ban a song to look like he is actuall doing something useful during a time of crisis. In case anyone is wondering the song is 'Mississippi's Burning' shortly after Katrina hit.

Also US media is very restrictive and will not show/play anything that may upset certain certain influencial groups. How many radio stations refused to play that Eminem song about 11 September or HBO refusing to show a documentry on Fidel Castro, or how many foreign movies are shown in the US in general?

Terms like "commie" "leftie" "anti-American" "liberal" and countless others are used to censor peoples opinions.

 

Hence the word "yet".

 

We do have similar things here and some unique violations of freedom of speech, for example the discussion of N.Irish politics is banned in most work places because a few people are not mature enough to have a mature discussion without resorting to violence, and most pubs/clubs will not allow anyone access if they are wearing football shirts as this promotes 'sectarian violence'

 

Freedom of expression is a privilege that also comes with a great responsibility.
One must be able to accept the consequences of his expressions.

In our days more and more people seem to easy and fond to express their opinions (publicly or privately) but when the time comes to accept responsibility they look shocked that they could not get away with it.

So i think that in the end we (that is as a society) are traumatizing this privilege, by proving ourselves (not all but even one is enough to do this for all) unworthy of this concept.

 

Mithrandir: What exactly are you talking about when you say that people need to accept the consequences? Because I don't see why anyone should accept the consequence of - say - speaking against Muhammed.

If using your free speech is punished - it's not very free, is it?

 

Everything you say and/or do comes with consequences. Freedom is never free, it must be fought for every time you exercise your freedom. If you sayor do something that causees trouble, whether you intended to or not, be prepared to fight for your freedom. That is why One must be able to accept the consequences of thier expressions. Freedom of any kind is not free and it comes with great responsibility. A freed faced with the responsibility of freedom may prefer his bondage. Today, people throw around thier opinion and express themselves in a vulgar manner and then act shocked when this behavior results in negative consequences. As I said, Freedom is never free, be prepared to fight every time you exercise your freedom.

 

Thank you for that beautiful example of doublethink, Bassil. 'Freedom is never free' - sounds like something straight out of Oceania...

Maybe you could clarify what it is that your trying to say. Who is it that hands out the consequences? Who *should* hand out the consequences? What should these consequences be?

If the 'negative consequences' of free speech is vocal criticism - something very good has just happened; an exchange of ideas. If the concequences are suppression/oppression - things are ****ed up. I don't see how this is a desirable state of affairs.

On the other hand - I have no idea what it is that you're trying to say due to some pretty hefty contradictions in your post...

 

Way I see it, folks just say what they like whether they're allowed to or not. The only people who care about these restrictions are the ones who would put a price on freedom.

 

Since when did YouTube.com become the US government or a public space? It's a private company and it can set whatever rules and limits on the videos it hosts that it wants.

The same is true of sorcerers.net. I'm sure I could type a few words right now that would quickly get this post deleted. I'm certainly not going to call up the ACLU about it.

If you are an American and you have something to say, go to a public area and hold up a big sign all day long if you want and the rest of us will be more than happy to walk right on by and ignore you.

 

lol - I'd quite forgotten the original topic and was just speaking in general. The company is well within their rights to take these things down, but it still isn't the best way to fight the ideas behind the videos.

 

No one here is saying what YouTube must do (at least I hope they are), but what they ought to do, Sir Fink. Of course, the YouTube folks are in their full power to ignore us completely, or even post here that since we're not the ones who made several hundred millions in a few years, they don't give a damn about what we think.

Well, I didn't make millions. If someone here did, good for them.