where does the line get drawn? is there a line? can you say anything you want, then also have a right to keep your reasons for saying such things to yourself? and who is to define what we can and cannot say? with the right to freedom of speach is there also the responsability to use it in a mature, responsable and dare i say, even respectful manner? or are there no responsabilities tied to it? completely free? ps, and why is it that in nations who are supposed to have freedom of speech, we also have censorship?
freedom of speach is freedom of speech. now if you insist on saying the sky is orange with green glouds, that's your right but I will always see it blue with white clouds. you will always have the right to say it's red and I will always have the right to say it's blue. that's freedom of speech. I think the issue realy is if the sky blue or orange. let me clarify: I mean what matters is the truth. I may add: I don't considere that because everyone would tend to say it's blue then the sky has to be truthfully blue, we could be all wrong. as an exemple millions of people believed the earth was plane not sphere. "Jews are bad, we must kill all jews" anyone has the right to say so. "we should all live in brotherhood" anyone has the right to say this. but what is the truth? so to me there is a line: anyone can say anything, that's freedom of speech, but no one can say they behold the Truth. would you say this is quite true ?
"anyone can say anything, that's freedom of speech, but no one can say they behold the Truth." thats basically the same as what i was thinking as i began to read your reply. i thought you werent heading in that direction to begin with, i thought i was gonna be thrust into a big heated debate after only the first reply... but no... you went and stole my thunder and said my point too. damn you! hehe
Don't forget the difference between freedoms and liberties. Freedoms that are given to citizens are vague, and therefore gov'ts get to draw the line where they see fit. No one can fuck with your liberties though, too bad it's not called liberty of speech...
yeah, i've never fully understood "liberties", because this side of the pond we have "rights" instead. A friend of mine who was studying Law (corporate law to be precise) once explained it to me in legal terms. and to translate what he said into my own words, the best i could figure it, it basically means, the starting block is a puritanical authoritarian rule, and these liberties are granted to you as part of citizenship... liberties can be taken away. ... i think i'll stick to rights. no "gauntanamo bays" over here thanx. ... hehe. "Freedom" freedom, is, like you say, vague. nearly everyone knows they want it and dont want it taken away from them... but few seem to realise that its not a "digital" thing. its not "have you got freedom", it is more analogue than that, the question should be "how much freedom do you have". Those of us who are libertarian or anarchistic will exhault and honour freedom extremes. those who are not will demand tighter reigns. the problem with tighter reigns is like that old sand in the fist analogy. the tighter they squeeze the more of us grains of sand slip through the gaps. where do the grains of sand fall to tho? ... i'm tempted to give my own answer to that... but i think its better left to let people think of the answers to that themselves. an example of the scale and variation in the scale within one nation: freedom of speech in America under the bush administration after recent executive authority/discretion bills that were passed during Clinton's time right under the noses of the public. The "controls" and pressures on TV networks to conform to the "American" line. sure you can say what you want where you want, and TV still has freedom of speech being better represented via public access... but just be ready for the consequences of your words. land of the free? sure. i suppose i cant really claim that line to be false anymore by my own logic. but maybe it would be better said as "Land of the somewhat free". heehee. thanYOU for bringing more attention to that line.
actualy I'll give it a try.. freedom n. 1 condition of being free or unrestricted. 2 personal or civic liberty. 3 liberty of action (freedom to leave). 4 (foll. by from) exemption from. 5 (foll. by of) 5a honorary membership or citizenship (freedom of the city). 5b unrestricted use of (a house etc.). [Old English] liberty n. (pl. -ies) 1 freedom from captivity etc. 2 right or power to do as one pleases. 3 (usu. in pl.) right or privilege granted by authority. +++++++ hum hum hum ... now in the definition for freedom i have "personal or civic liberty" that is going to be confusing.. and in liberty definition I have "right or privilege /granted/ by authority" now how interesting isn't it... so if i read this right freedom, is the right that is granted to me by authority ... hahahaha scary he ? ... very nice post indeed, thccrystals .. hou scary. I though I woz free ... hahahaha this is just so scary, by this reading of the pocket oxford dictionaryie, that gives ANY RIGHTS TO ANY FUCKING AUTHORITY. but, luckyly the american authorities did provide a freedom to their citizens to kick the govt: weapons; the only thing pacisifsts will not use, that is indeed very clever, Mr Hamilton. I think I understand how much the constitution is corrupted from its verry fucking roots. {tips his hat} you had me there, Mr Hamilton.
funny I though i'd be burn to ashes the instant i uploaded that post... anyway, i'll comment on that miself. Actualy, when Hamilton and the others instated that constitution, there were no USarmy. today, USofA have one (probably the) biggest military force in the world. so maybe that constitution (written on hemp) is jst not good anymore for today. The french gov is at it's Fifth constitution, because we DO change things that need to be changed (I mean our system allows that). so maybe this is were all goes wrong.. hamilton and the others created the constitution for many reasons, among them, there were: economical strenthenning, defense strenthenning. TODAY, the world economics are compeletly changing: $; €; Y .. and USofA do not need defense anymore (they have the army) the american constitution is nolonger suitable in today's society. except maybe for one thing: get the rich richer (that fact, juxtaposed to the other fact "USofA gov decisions have impact on the whole world" are the two unstable isotope of a nuclear bomb)
ooh ooh... is this where we pick on gri77on for being a citizen of the nation that most openly writes corruption into its politics? ... two words.. Brown envelopes. hehe.
errrr dunno probably too stoned rigt now but I don't get it ? .... brown envelope ? .... anyway, what about the argument tho: the us constitution needs a ittle update ? ... if we let ourselves get emotive with this thread it's gonna go nowhere. (may i precise that I do not see miself as french; eye see miself as thy brother.) and if you want I do not mind at whole a thread dedicated to the sikenning people in french gov, or the way laws are becoming utter ridiculous in France etc etc... It won't be as fun ... (actually that's where I notice i don't act much on that part... but I act elsewhere , where it is important to me ... that's another thread..) anyway. upgrade the US constitution: making sure the responsabilities of citizens and gov people are enhanced,; plus soething regarding the fact that US must not do ever again something over UN. who's in ? ..