What is Freedom Of Speech ?

I'm probably missing the biggest point on earth but that's why I want views on this. What does "Freedom Of Speech" stand for ? I mean, what practical uses has it contributed towards a more modern society ? Where does it start and end (if it does) ? And, for example, individuals publicly express their ideas of provocation and/or hatred towards the identity of your country/nation, how far is it acceptable? Is it still freedom of speech and subject to being "injudgeable by authorities" ? Is freedom of speech universal or should be redefined among distinct cultures ?

What do you think ?

It should have no limits other than slander and personal offence (that is, something directed at someone with intent to offed). It is quite an old tradition in the House of Commons, but recently and internationally, it allows to people's views coming across. In those countries without it, we know little of what their people want, what their attitudes are to their government.

However, people should still be polite, and practise the rules of polite conversation (i.e. no politics, religion, children, talking of one's own virtues or another's vices) when meeting someone new, or over dinner, or somesuch occasion.

I think it's an urban myth

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ja'chyra

I think it's an urban myth

---

If not sarcastic, I'm close to the idea of yours. But why is it so then? What are your reasons behind this ?

Freedom of Speech is a concept which allows an individual to speak his mind without fear of prosecution from the government. Freedom of Speech does not remove the responsibility from the individual to insure that his speech is factual. One can not always be predict how people will take their speech - but the government has upheld a few standards that seem reasonable on the surface.

States have upheld that Freedom of Speech does not entitle one to speak in such a manner that advocates harm to another person or group. States also have in their self-interest (the states interest) limited speech that advocates the violent overthrow of the government authority.

If one has Freedom to Speak their mind - they must also accept the responsiblity that goes with it. This is the dilemia of free speech, most want the freedom but not the responsibility that goes with it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LeftEyeNine

If not sarcastic, I'm close to the idea of yours. But why is it so then? What are your reasons behind this ?

---

True freedom of speech would entitle anyone to say whatever they liked, whether it was offensive to others or not, and we all know that this is prohibited by law (race relations, discrimination acts).

So we have partial freedom, and the amount decreases with every ridiculous law brought in.

Well you seem disturbed with the laws brought in. If so, care to talk about the possibility of the true Freedom Of Speech happening ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ja'chyra

True freedom of speech would entitle anyone to say whatever they liked, whether it was offensive to others or not, and we all know that this is prohibited by law (race relations, discrimination acts).

So we have partial freedom, and the amount decreases with every ridiculous law brought in.

---

I would be ok with true freedom of speech if there were also a freedom of prosecution for retaliation to ones free speech. Slander someone and they beat you’re a$$ without punishment. Hummmm might work… but probably not. There really does need to be limitations, but some of the new/proposed laws are absurd and completely go against the very nature of the concept of free speech.

Being able to say "Hey **** you Bush!" at a peace rally...:idea2:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

Freedom of Speech is a concept which allows an individual to speak his mind without fear of prosecution from the government. Freedom of Speech does not remove the responsibility from the individual to insure that his speech is factual. One can not always be predict how people will take their speech - but the government has upheld a few standards that seem reasonable on the surface.

States have upheld that Freedom of Speech does not entitle one to speak in such a manner that advocates harm to another person or group. States also have in their self-interest (the states interest) limited speech that advocates the violent overthrow of the government authority.

If one has Freedom to Speak their mind - they must also accept the responsiblity that goes with it. This is the dilemia of free speech, most want the freedom but not the responsibility that goes with it.

---

Redleg hit the nail in the head.Nuff said.:bow:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alexanderofmacedon

Being able to say "Hey **** you Bush!" at a peace rally...:idea2:

---

....without getting thrown into jail and getting sentenced 20 years imprisonment for treason.

:balloon2:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dutch_guy

....without getting thrown into jail and getting sentenced 20 years imprisonment for treason.

:balloon2:

---

Yeah, that was implied, but thank you...

Freedom of speech means that a rebel that dislikes a government can state why. No freedom of speech means that if you say why you dislike a government, the government puts you in jail or kills you, or punishes you in some other way and uses camps for dissenters etc, and then fifty years or so later a mob realizes that that government doesn't allow you to state your opinion or have your rights so the only way of getting a better life is to start a killing spree of all people that are part of or related to the government in one way or another. Basically, if you have freedom of speech people can express any political opinion, except hate speech, whose purpose is to spread hate and cause violent treatment of some group where not all who are part of that group are guilty of some crime. For instance hate speech towards the group "sentenced criminals" isn't considered illegal, but towards pretty much any other grouping it is. As for expressing social level opinions about others, it's not necessarily a right that must be protected, on the other hand, it can't really be forbidden either.

Freedom of speech means different things to different peoples.

For example, the founding fathers (American) saw no contradiction between erecting free speech and blasphemy laws. Free speech covered one area, while blasphemy covered another...

I think we only got Partial Freedom of Speech,because you say something wrong,rather you mean it or not,you can get busted,so,why call it Freedom of Speech??

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BHCWarman88

so,why call it Freedom of Speech??

---

Marketing. ~D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BHCWarman88

I think we only got Partial Freedom of Speech,because you say something wrong,rather you mean it or not,you can get busted,so,why call it Freedom of Speech??

---

Evaluate what people get "busted" for in their speech and how they get "busted" for their speech.

An individual still must accept responsiblity for their speech. Freedom of Speech does not remove you from that responsibility. Now in the United States notice how many peaceful protestors are arrested for their speech - one that comes to mind is Cindy S. and her protesting in front of the Crawford Ranch. Was she arrested for exercising her Freedom of Speech to question the President's actions?

Now take that same individual who elected to wear a political statement on a shirt into the State of the Union Speech where the rules are well known? Did she exercise her Freedom of Speech, regardless of the stated rule for that particlur sesson of Congress, or did she violate the rules of the Senate which allows for actions to be taken? Does her desire to exercise her Freedom of Speech mean that the Congress can not enforce their house rules when they are in session?

Again with Freedom comes Responsiblity. Without Responsibility there is no Freedom.

I think the correct term would be Liberty of Speech.

And no matter what you are allowed to do there are consequences for your actions. Adults take responsibility for their actions, Freedom of Speech to me is the ability to talk factually about things without censure. If I am lying about things then I don't see why I should be allowed to pollute the aural landscape. It would be nice to have politicians who are honest when talking...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alexanderofmacedon

Being able to say "Hey **** you Bush!" at a peace rally...:idea2:

---

Why not have some class and say something more Witty about Bush, Instead of the mindless "I hate you cuz you hate p00r people!"

There really is no reason to use public profanity.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ice

Why not have some class and say something more Witty about Bush, Instead of the mindless "I hate you cuz you hate p00r people!"

There really is no reason to use public profanity.

---

I'm not saying I would do that. Being able to do that is my point...

...silly

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alexanderofmacedon

I'm not saying I would do that. Being able to do that is my point...

...silly

---

Can you point out the last time someone was arrested for saying something like that?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LeftEyeNine

I'm probably missing the biggest point on earth but that's why I want views on this. What does "Freedom Of Speech" stand for ? I mean, what practical uses has it contributed towards a more modern society ? Where does it start and end (if it does) ? And, for example, individuals publicly express their ideas of provocation and/or hatred towards the identity of your country/nation, how far is it acceptable? Is it still freedom of speech and subject to being "injudgeable by authorities" ? Is freedom of speech universal or should be redefined among distinct cultures ?

What do you think ?

---

Hello,

-Freedom of Speech is fundamentally a political act.
-The practical use is to serve as a demonstrative limit on the power of the government.
-It starts and ends with the legislative process meaning: the citizenry determine the boundaries and those boundaries remain amenable to the same. This applies from the passage of constitutional provisions to local jurisdiction.
-Provocative speech, dispisal of the government and/or national self loathing is traditionally acceptable up to actually advocacy of armed overthrow of the state insofar as the state is a representative organ.

-Proponents of democracy typically see the base notion of free speech as a universal insofar as a person is not entirely identified by his or her citizenry and is thereby naturally empowered irrespective of the state. Even so, the particular parameters of expression may be defined by the legislative process noted above.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

Can you point out the last time someone was arrested for saying something like that?

---

I can't remember a time when someone was arrested, but I do remember a rather amusing inccident during Bush's inauguration speech. Some guy stood up and started shouting while Georgie was nattering on about America's god given right to Freedom of Speech, or something of a similar nature. The camera just stayed on the protester long enough to see him dragged away. :laugh4: It's not really an example, and you can understand the need to kick such a person out, but it was still damn funny.

Freedom of Speech is being able to say what you want when you want. If others dont agree with you it shouldnt matter becuase other peoples opinons arent as important

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strike For The South

If others dont agree with you it shouldnt matter becuase other peoples opinons arent as important

---

I hope that's sarcasam because you do know we live in a Democratic Republic, right?

I meant you should say your opinion no matter what and shouldnt be bound by popularity or free hot dogs. In todays world people are to afriad to say what they really feel. Some people call this restraint "tact" I call this "silly"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

Can you point out the last time someone was arrested for saying something like that?

---

Who said anyone got arrested? I said that's what free speech is. If America is home to free speech, then hopefully no one got arrested!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alexanderofmacedon

Who said anyone got arrested? I said that's what free speech is. If America is home to free speech, then hopefully no one got arrested!

---

Again ask yourself the question....The answer is self-evident once one looks for the answer.....

You could be arrested for using the F-word in public if it happened in a setting where it could be deemed public indecency, or disturbing the peace. Who else is present is just as important as where you are. Yelling it at a commencement ceremony will put you at odds with the university rules, but yelling it from your dorm window as the president walks to his car likley wouldn't. Yelling it in front of children could get you arrested, yelling it in front of a group of adults likely wouldn't.



I'm really a big fan of unadultered freedom of speech(with libel and slander exceptions), but am torn on the issue when it comes to indecency laws because of scumbags who blare vulgar music out of cars around kids, old ladys and teenage girls.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

Evaluate what people get "busted" for in their speech and how they get "busted" for their speech.

An individual still must accept responsiblity for their speech. Freedom of Speech does not remove you from that responsibility. Now in the United States notice how many peaceful protestors are arrested for their speech - one that comes to mind is Cindy S. and her protesting in front of the Crawford Ranch. Was she arrested for exercising her Freedom of Speech to question the President's actions?

Now take that same individual who elected to wear a political statement on a shirt into the State of the Union Speech where the rules are well known? Did she exercise her Freedom of Speech, regardless of the stated rule for that particlur sesson of Congress, or did she violate the rules of the Senate which allows for actions to be taken? Does her desire to exercise her Freedom of Speech mean that the Congress can not enforce their house rules when they are in session?

Again with Freedom comes Responsiblity. Without Responsibility there is no Freedom.

---

People Should Say whatever they want to say,and that it. I don't like Cindy S,think she needs to just admit her son died for our countey and that's it.. But she wants to Question Bush's Actions,she go Right Ahead,rather I like it or not..