As long as you agree with the media you have freedom of speech. If you disagree with them, they'll make sure you pay for it.
DELETED
- Thread starter deleted60525
- Start date
Recommended Videos
An American can go to Washington D.C. and loudly insult and criticize the President, Vice-President and his entire cabinet as well as congress without having to fear being arrested or even shot.
I remember reading recently about a Comedian in Myanmar was thrown in jail on a 35-year sentence for calling attention to the Myanmar government's failure to react to a devastating cyclone. People in other countries have been killed, jailed or threatened for stating their opinions or making comments that the ruling parties did not like.
Until the government starts arresting or killing people who say things they don't like, then you have freedom of speech.
I remember reading recently about a Comedian in Myanmar was thrown in jail on a 35-year sentence for calling attention to the Myanmar government's failure to react to a devastating cyclone. People in other countries have been killed, jailed or threatened for stating their opinions or making comments that the ruling parties did not like.
Until the government starts arresting or killing people who say things they don't like, then you have freedom of speech.
I think our civil rights are slowly being stripped out from underneath us, in the guise of 'civility', 'decency', 'good order' or whatever else you want to call it. What's really happening is a country where every word you say is examined and your livlihood can be stripped from you if it is determined someone important didn't like what you said. Escpecially if you're any sort of a public figure.
you're not suggesting that "paki" is a racist terms for indians, are you?GrinningManiac said:
depends who you mean by "we". if you mean Americans then we're absolutely free to be racist. if you mean some other country, then i'm not really sure. if you mean the Escapist, then we don't, because we agreed to give up our rights and not say certain things on these forums.joenero12 said:
Freedom of speech covers more than just criticizing one's government. Yes, the US government hasn't taken legal action against people who are against the Obama administration yet.
The problem that I see with all the circulating issues with the First Amendment happens to be what is considered peaceable, and what isn't? A lot of people seem to think that just because it offends them, that means it shouldn't be allowed. Outside of my town, on top of a high hill that everyone in town can see, there used to be a large cross that was built up there by the private land owner. Well, a couple of vocal citizens complained because the cross offended their religious views, and they wanted it removed. It went to court, and eventually, it had to be removed. Why? He was expressing his religious views peaceably and not hurting anyone. But someone was offended.
It is absolutely IMPOSSIBLE to go through life and never offend anyone. We have the right to say whatever we damn well please, so long as it doesn't hurt or slander anyone. We also have the right to disagree with whoever, or whatever we wish. Lately, it seems the judicial branch is more in support of whoever disagrees, rather then the rest. If you want to call them wops, jews, niggers, crackers, slant-eyes, or whatever, go ahead. I'm not going to like it, and will more than likely disassociate myself with you, as will most of society, but you shouldn't receive legal recourse for such statements. If you want to place a nativity scene in front of your house, you shouldn't be afraid of offending your atheist neighbor either. If you want burn the American flag in protest to the US government, go right ahead. These are all your legal rights. Just expect social justice to come about when everyone starts exercising their freedom of speech against you.
But you shouldn't have to fear legal recourse. That's the only time I get upset on these topics.
The problem that I see with all the circulating issues with the First Amendment happens to be what is considered peaceable, and what isn't? A lot of people seem to think that just because it offends them, that means it shouldn't be allowed. Outside of my town, on top of a high hill that everyone in town can see, there used to be a large cross that was built up there by the private land owner. Well, a couple of vocal citizens complained because the cross offended their religious views, and they wanted it removed. It went to court, and eventually, it had to be removed. Why? He was expressing his religious views peaceably and not hurting anyone. But someone was offended.
It is absolutely IMPOSSIBLE to go through life and never offend anyone. We have the right to say whatever we damn well please, so long as it doesn't hurt or slander anyone. We also have the right to disagree with whoever, or whatever we wish. Lately, it seems the judicial branch is more in support of whoever disagrees, rather then the rest. If you want to call them wops, jews, niggers, crackers, slant-eyes, or whatever, go ahead. I'm not going to like it, and will more than likely disassociate myself with you, as will most of society, but you shouldn't receive legal recourse for such statements. If you want to place a nativity scene in front of your house, you shouldn't be afraid of offending your atheist neighbor either. If you want burn the American flag in protest to the US government, go right ahead. These are all your legal rights. Just expect social justice to come about when everyone starts exercising their freedom of speech against you.
But you shouldn't have to fear legal recourse. That's the only time I get upset on these topics.
You can say whatever you want. There are repercussions, but short of death, nothing will stop you.
99% of the time, complaints about losing free speech are translations of, "No one is listening to me and I don't like it, Waaaaah!". You have free speech. But no one else has to listen. No one has to pay you for your speech. No one has to help you speak. No one has to give you space in something they own to help you speak. And everyone else has the right to call you nasty names based solely on your beliefs. And even then, your free speech is limited by certain reasonable constraints, namely that the speech itself can't be intended to commit illegal activity (Death threats, etc). That's one of the nice things about the internet: It is almost impossible to actually infringe on someones freedom of speech. It's possible that someone will stupidly dismiss your worthwhile ideas for frivolous reasons, but that is an integral part of, not a contradiction of, free speech.
Why yes...yes I am, what of it?cobra_ky said:
If you mean "But Paki means Pakistani", then yes, you're right, which is why it's doubly stupid. If you're going to be racist about an ethnicity, make sure you know who you're talking about first
If you mean "But Paki isn't racist", then we're done talking, thank you
I just look at it like this:
You have the freedom of speech unless if you are 1)directly attacking a specific person 2)stepping on someone's freedoms and Liberties and/or 3)doing something illegal.
This means if you are directly attacking someone verbally, to their face, freedom of speech can and should be limited. If you are doing something so as to take away someone's rights, freedom of speech can/should be taken away. Racism can be included in two but I really don't believe it should unless you are being racist to someone's face. Lastly, if you use freedom of speech and bypass laws in the process, freedom of speech can be taken away.
And with racism and political correctness and the like, you have the right to say "those stupid ni*****!" but another person has the right to tell you that that's wrong. Now if they verbally (and or physically really) that's when THEIR freedoms should start to be taken away.
You have the freedom of speech unless if you are 1)directly attacking a specific person 2)stepping on someone's freedoms and Liberties and/or 3)doing something illegal.
This means if you are directly attacking someone verbally, to their face, freedom of speech can and should be limited. If you are doing something so as to take away someone's rights, freedom of speech can/should be taken away. Racism can be included in two but I really don't believe it should unless you are being racist to someone's face. Lastly, if you use freedom of speech and bypass laws in the process, freedom of speech can be taken away.
And with racism and political correctness and the like, you have the right to say "those stupid ni*****!" but another person has the right to tell you that that's wrong. Now if they verbally (and or physically really) that's when THEIR freedoms should start to be taken away.
its things like that that piss me off, but remember that for every time that kind of thing happens, there are plenty where it doesnt happen in the uk thats the only sort of freedom of speech violation we get. im fine with that. i mean, im all good for people who openly preach hate and glorify 9 11 to be jailedEl Dingo said:
Well, as far as I know over here in Belgium you can hold international Neo-Nazi meetings/conventions (unlike in neighboring countries) and the police force will protect you from angry mobs. Is that freedom-of-speech-like enough.