|
|
Post by mouse on Apr 5, 2016 4:26:16 GMT -5
there should be NO limits on freedom of speech...there are NO DIFFICULT problems in regard to free speech....what there are are people who take freedoms and equate freedom with licence....and there are rulers/politos/religiosi who wish to prevent freedom of speech and who will take ANY opportunity to deprive people of the freedom to speak in that freedom of speech comes up with some very difficult questions which certain people have no wish to answer why any one would wish to deprive us all of the freedom to speak is beyond me...I have no problems with anyones adult freedoms to speak... licence however is a totally different matter as for you being like every one else in wanting to limit free speech...well sorry but not every one wishes to limit such freedom...so that is a very wrong assumption on your part Of course there have to be limits. Free Speech comes hand in hand with responsibility. Making claims that are not true or slandering go beyond the limits. Instigating mob violence is another use of "free speech" that is out of bounds. I understand exactly what you say and I agree there should be responsibility...however that is exactly what freedom of speech is about...absolute free speech is a must..it is not for the state ANY state to regulate what can or cannot be spoken....the majority of people will fully understand and self regulate the words they say..so not to be hurtfull..inciting etc and its very noticiable that the question of freedom of speech comes to the for when governments/rulers/groups are failing the populations or trying to take away freedom and obscure and manipulate freedom of speech is not licence or irresponsibility....but freedom of speech..freedom to object and be critical .the freedom to laugh to make mock ...freedoms we lose to our detriment think the murders of the cartoonists in Paris the Raussian gulags and Lubianka the remorseless stasi the Getapo Gaddafi and Husains prison blocks of unspeakable horrors that is where the loss of speaking..the loss of freedoms to apose leads..and I want no part in going down that road...and if the price of NOT going down that road are some hurt feelings and a few bruised sensebilities and putting up with a few marches better them than being fed into a threshing machine or seeing a child or old relative raped with a broken bottle limiting ones self and having limits imposed for political reasons are two very very different things |
|
|
|
Post by mouse on Apr 5, 2016 5:48:24 GMT -5
Hi Mouse, so when is licence to freedom of speech inappropriate in your estimation? "Fire"!!! in a crowded theater - when there's no fire? that's an old bogey..only the either mentally ill or those with a humour age of a child would find anything rewarding in doing such..and in all my years of theatre and concert going never once did anyone be so irresponsible as to shout fire there were those who phoned hoax bomb threats during the ira years..always to Marks and Spencers when we shoppers would all be ushered out of the store..no rushing no panicing till the store was deemed safe to return into but that is stupidity where the real licence of free speech comes is when government and agencies rack up a situation to try to instill fear into the populace on the flimsiest of reasons..creating fear where...agencies manipulate a situation to their own desires via words in the media shouting fire in a theatre is nothing more than an ability to lie and has nothing to do with freedom to speak freedom to speak..to discuss..to object..to be critical..is a basic freedom..dont let it be taken away by political agendas...and groups who are fearful of cartoons or light being shone on their actions and the instance which is under discussion ie a march brought on by the actions of bombing and maiming a march forbidden by the authorities is a prime example of two groups both of which object to freedoms being excersised...not a good situation |
|
|
|
Post by mouse on Apr 5, 2016 6:21:27 GMT -5
Hi Mouse, so when is licence to freedom of speech inappropriate in your estimation? freedom of speech is never inappropriate..it becomes licence when its lies and untruths and when it impinges on the freedom to speak of others those who would use freedom to speak must always realise that others have the right to ignore and verbally reject their spoken words freedom of speech means that the speaker bears absolute responsibility for the words he or she speaks licence is thinking one can say what ever one wishes and NOT be held responsible its a grown up thinking... of being individually responsible for all ones words and actions and then taking the fall out [or not] due to those words and actions good or bad and that of course SL is exactly what you believe in but in different words..you call it karma blah blah |
|
|
|
Post by beth on Apr 5, 2016 9:18:02 GMT -5
"Fire"!!! in a crowded theater - when there's no fire? that's an old bogey..only the either mentally ill or those with a humour age of a child would find anything rewarding in doing such..and in all my years of theatre and concert going never once did anyone be so irresponsible as to shout fire there were those who phoned hoax bomb threats during the ira years..always to Marks and Spencers when we shoppers would all be ushered out of the store..no rushing no panicing till the store was deemed safe to return into but that is stupidity where the real licence of free speech comes is when government and agencies rack up a situation to try to instill fear into the populace on the flimsiest of reasons..creating fear where...agencies manipulate a situation to their own desires via words in the media shouting fire in a theatre is nothing more than an ability to lie and has nothing to do with freedom to speak freedom to speak..to discuss..to object..to be critical..is a basic freedom..dont let it be taken away by political agendas...and groups who are fearful of cartoons or light being shone on their actions and the instance which is under discussion ie a march brought on by the actions of bombing and maiming a march forbidden by the authorities is a prime example of two groups both of which object to freedoms being excersised...not a good situation I don't think the old saw is ever meant literally but as a caution to be responsible and not take our freedom of speech for granted. When we claim that right, we have to understand it applies to all ... not just those who stand for the same things we do. |
|
Jessiealan
xr
Member of the Month, October 2013
Posts: 8,726 
|
Post by Jessiealan on Apr 5, 2016 18:59:31 GMT -5
"Fire"!!! in a crowded theater - when there's no fire? that's an old bogey..only the either mentally ill or those with a humour age of a child would find anything rewarding in doing such..and in all my years of theatre and concert going never once did anyone be so irresponsible as to shout fire there were those who phoned hoax bomb threats during the ira years..always to Marks and Spencers when we shoppers would all be ushered out of the store..no rushing no panicing till the store was deemed safe to return into but that is stupidity where the real licence of free speech comes is when government and agencies rack up a situation to try to instill fear into the populace on the flimsiest of reasons..creating fear where...agencies manipulate a situation to their own desires via words in the media shouting fire in a theatre is nothing more than an ability to lie and has nothing to do with freedom to speak freedom to speak..to discuss..to object..to be critical..is a basic freedom..dont let it be taken away by political agendas...and groups who are fearful of cartoons or light being shone on their actions and the instance which is under discussion ie a march brought on by the actions of bombing and maiming a march forbidden by the authorities is a prime example of two groups both of which object to freedoms being excersised...not a good situation Yes, of course it is, mouse. It is also a good example of why free speech without knowing when to apply common sense and reasoning could be a bad idea. We do not want to be told what we can and can't say. However, I believe that politicians who use inflammatory speeches to incite anger are dead wrong and should stay within guidelines. \\ Also, on an everyday basis, common courtesy is a better idea than rude insulting dialogue. We cannot reasonably have laws that require people to be polite, but usually, society will frown on those who are extremely rude and crude. It has nothing to do with PC but is an important part of cultural norms. |
|
Omega
