Only 400%? Not enough. I am looking for 1000 %. Call me when you can guarantee 1000%.
has free speech gotten to our heads a little?
- Thread starter Chiliagon
- Start date
Only 400%? Not enough. I am looking for 1000 %. Call me when you can guarantee 1000%.
Free Speech - it is a precious commodity and censorship a shakey procedure. Combined with Free Speech might be a further benefit - Freedom of Decision - which I trust we will never lose!
How ridiculous! Why differentiate between 'stupid' or 'intelligent' speech? what you might consider 'stupid' I might very well consider intelligent! People have the right to say what they believe - does that mean that I believe that others (employers, those that may feel that they are being defamed) don't have a right to respond? Of course not. If a reporter makes a statement that is incendiary or slanderous, their employer has the fright to terminate their employment. that is not stifling their ability to 'speak freely', it just means that they will have to speak freely someplace other than their place of employment.
And if i feel that I feel have been slandered then I have the right to take the person to court. I am not stifling their right to say what they wish to say, I am merely exercising my right to protect my reputation.
They have a perfect right do they?
Christians protest actions that play down Christmas' religious nature
USATODAY.com - Christians protest actions that play down Christmas' religious nature
Just Leave Christmas Alone
Just Leave Christmas Alone (washingtonpost.com)
Best Buy Bans Merry Christmas But Wishes Customers A Happy Eid al-Adha In A National Advertisement
Best Buy Bans Merry Christmas But Wishes Customers A Happy Eid al-Adha In A National Advertisement
If wishing someone a Merry Christmas was a positive and well-wishing thing that nobody would have an issue with saying to another person and that person wouldn't have an issue with them saying this to them even if they don't believe in Christmas or Christianity (Which is the basic message you sounded like you were trying to express in your previous post)...... then why has this sort of crap been occurring for the last number of years?
Or have you not been keeping up to date with this subject?
So then you agree there are acceptable limitations to Freedom of Speech?
Even if you try and explain your position in that a private establishment and a public place are two totally different things, even you have to admit that even in public places you are still restricted in what you say out loud.
If you start shouting swear words for a while, eventually the police are going to show up and charge/fine you for swearing in public... some places from just a quick look online will fine someone $100 for swearing in public......
Whether or not you think it's right to fine or charge someone for using profanity in public, currently it's the law in most places.... thus a restriction which contradicts your own claims.
I understand completely how it all works.... I just disagree with the level of freedom you seem to claim there is in our right to speak our minds, especially in a public area.
I can not threaten to kill someone or promote the assault/harm or death of someone in public, I can not openly swear or shout other profanities in public, I can not promote the hatred and villainization of a group of gender, race, sexual orintation, religious beliefs, lifestyles, etc..... otherwise it's classified at the promotion of hate speech or racism..... I can not do any of these things without risking some form of punishment/consequence for my actions..... thus a restriction/limitation, which you above freely admit exists, yet you still say that we're completely free to say whatever we please in a public place..... which clearly we are not.
We are allowed to say a lot of things, but we do not have a completely open door towards what we can say.
My entire argument is that there are restrictions on our freedom to say whatever we want and I listed those (Which I agree with)...... to me you are implying that there are no restrictions..... oh, except in this instance or that instance, or in private institutions..... but otherwise there are no restrictions, thus those you and I just listed somehow don't count? :-?
And my other argument was towards the comment that stupid and idiotic comments people say, even if they're completely ignorant, baseless and sometimes make a situation worse.... should be protected as much as possible, but intelligent and reasonable comments don't need any protection whatsoever because they're simply accepted, which they are not.
I'm just saying that I believe in freedom of speech to a certain limit and restricted based on very detailed and logical justifications, such as safety and protection of those around the person and the person themselves...... and that every form of speech should be protected to a degree, yet also restricted to a degree.
Those responsible for deciding what's right or wrong to say freely should not be the government however..... it should be left to the people to determine this, and the government/law enforcement enforce those decisions.
It's just not a black and white situation.
Unfortunately free speech has crossed the line into entertainment. One only has to watch Glenn Beck or other FOX news-types in action to realize that. This tends to grossly distort the truth in favour of controversial commentary. What many viewers of TV news do not seem to understand is that when they watch people like Beck they are really watching someone who is no better informed than the average talk show host. You'd probably get a better view of world and national events by having David Letterman or Craig Ferguson comment on them than some of the so-called news experts. This frequently results in extreme or highly distorted opinions being given as fact. This is a severe problem when delivering these views to a population that has extreme difficulty in differentiating between fact and fiction.
just look at the Whole Mel Gibson debacle going on. his argument he had with his ex was suddenly brought out into the public because she wanted to screw him over. his rights to privacy were totally violated. BUT the whole "he's a celebrity, he has to deal with it" comes into affect now.
Maybe you don't get my drift, I am not being subjective or contradictory, if you say stuff you should be able to back it up. There is a balance between rights, the right to say what you want and the right of those whose good name may be being slagged. As far as using your official capacity in speaking out, you first have a responsibility to your employer. There is a Western based airline that has "Jet" in its name, that since its inception has forbade employees from speaking ill of it, (I know the founding parties quite well). It is perfectly legal, as a matter of fact, they have such good pr folks that incidents either go unreported or garner a half paragraph on page 6 of your local paper, and they are no worse or better than anyone else, but I digress.
If I claimed that Captain Joe Sixpack regularly downed a half sack of ale before work, that would be free speech. Of course I would have to be able to back that up as that would be a carreer ender for Captain Joe. I could be on the hook for well into 8 figures, and trust me, that has happened to others, the union is still paying. Rights come with responsibilities. The problem lies when the state regulates what can be said, or as I mentioned, political correctness run amok. Speech has to cause harm to be actionable, mere opinion does not normally fall under this umbrella, unless of course it ends up before the Human Rights Tribunals, where again, the truth is no defense and harm does not need to be proven.
Yelling "fire" in a crowded theater is sinister, just as saying all gays, blacks, jews, or pick your victim, should be murdered, you are inciting or promoting an act with an intent that will have predictable consequences,(at least that of a reasonable person). Of course if you genuinely believed there was a fire, that would be something different.
Speech in this country can be and is limited by the state for just being offensive, even if it is true, and that is wrong.