Freedom of speech? Pah!

Freedom of speech? What an overated concept! As the manic street preachers sang "Freedom of speech wont feed my children" and they're right of course. Too many people are so wrapped up in the idea of protecting their precious freedom to say whatever crap pops into their head that they never even notice when their other rights are stripped away, they don't notice the injustice and the poverty and the oppression which the government and the rich foster on them.

Here's something to think about: if there was no freedom of speech, would you be able to post all these rantings and ravings you're making right now? :)

Freedom of speech is a good thing. If we didn't have it, we could easily be living in a facist society. Everyone should be able to think for themselves.

By the way, did you know that even though Americans have the right for freedom of speech, that doesn't mean that you cannot be prosecuted for your words? I cannot remember the exact date or name, but a bill was once passed to allow for prosecution of the exercision of this freedom. Thats how that whole Macarthy era debacle happened.

McCarthy was just a paranoid, self-righteous, egotistical shithead! All you had to say was, "I hate the president", and you were accused of being a commie? Sorry! Wrong answer!

There is a difference between freedom of thought and freedom of speech.

When it comes to freedom of thought, it cannot be taken away from anyone by force, but brainwashing does have its horrible effects.

Freedom of speech is good to a certain extent, just like everything in our life. Often it's not easy to see where the line that's not to be crossed is drawn.

I rember having a debate about this once... though it had to do more with regulating the internet. The arguement should still apply, though. Basically you link the Marketplace of Ideas to the Organic Evolution of Society, and BOOM! Freedom of Speech all the way!

Marketplace of Ideas basically states that people need a buffet of ideas to choose from. But not just a buffet. We're talking the buffet of all buffets. The kind that has everything imaginable. Anyway, people need all these ideas available to them so that they can choose what to and what not to believe.

The Organic Evolution of Society basically states that society evolves much like an organism, and better and better societies will always be born from the rubble of those that have fallen.

When you link these two together you basically get the idea that in order for society to advance to its fullest potential the people within that society must have a full range of ideas and concepts available to them. This includes hate speech, racism, yadda, yadda, yadda. People often see the limit on any freedom as being the point in which the freedom of one person infringes on the rights of another. The example of crying "Fire" in a crowded theater is restriced because it endangers the well-being of other individuals. These days, however, people are being absorbed into the PC mindset and are afraid to allow any speech or ideas that might hurt the "demographic". This is where a lot of restictions on free speech come into play.

So the problem is "undesireable" speech, or speech that arouses blatant disagreements between people. By linking the two theories you begin to see that hate speech is essential to the evolution of society. By having all viewpoints available, people are allowed to make their own decisions... educated decisions. Of course, you first have to find a way to get people's heads out of their own asses, but you get the picture.

I am 100% for freedom of speech. All the way. Although I never really looked at it the methodical, scientific way that Ellipsus does.

I think Jonathan has it all wrong. You see, we're all for it, because we really still don't have it. I can voice any opinion I want, but I can suffer repercussions for it. My rage poetry that I have posted on my website can get me into some serious trouble...not that I give a shit of course, but that's aside from the point. Freedom of speech is a dream. We do, at least have a lot of freedoms regarding opinions, but not absolute freedom.

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."- Ben Franklin

Good thing I post my rage poetry and say all the anti-zionist shit I want regardless of the penalties, eh?

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."- Ben Franklin

Yes, but in this quote the words "Liberty" and "Safety" are interchangeable, so it isn't actually getting us anywhere. I personally think it's impossible to reach a definite conclusion on a matter like this.

>>Yes, but in this quote the words "Liberty" and "Safety" are interchangeable<<

No they are not. I suggest you research the meaning of the quote.

I think they are.

I see the meaning of the quote well enough (it is very clear IMO), but I could say:

"Those who give up essential Safety to obtain a little temporary Liberty deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

And many people, including me, would agree with both quotse.

The key here is "essential" compared to "little" and "temporary". Neither of them is more important than the other, it all comes down to the specific situation, personal preferences and such things.

>>I think they are.

I understand. But YOU did not create this quote. The meaning conveyed by Ben is WAY different than your interpretation.

>>I see the meaning of the quote well enough (it is very clear IMO), but I could say:

"Those who give up essential Safety to obtain a little temporary Liberty deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." <<

Yes, you can say that. But it is diametrically opposite of Ben's meaning.

>>And many people, including me, would agree with both quotse. <<

Fair enough. But why resort to revisionism? You may feel that security=liberty, but Ben would disagree. Hence, his quote.

Do you also believe that the 2nd ammendment applies to groups as opposed to individuals?

Of course that changing the words makes the meaning diametrically opposite, but the point is that both statements are equally true. Let Ben or anyone else disagree with that, that's not even something worth to argue about.

And I don't know what the second ammendment is, partially because I don't live in the US.

>>Of course that changing the words makes the meaning diametrically opposite, but the point is that both statements are equally true. Let Ben or anyone else disagree with that, that's not even something worth to argue about. <<

I couldn't disagree more. Both statements cannot be true. They are polar opposites. And this IS something worth arguing about.

Does Neville Chamberlain ring a bell? For the sake of "security", he gave away most of Eastern Europe to the Nazis.

The results of this action was that the world obtained neither security nor freedom. That's the problem with revisionist thinking. History is always getting in the way.

>>And I don't know what the second ammendment is, partially because I don't live in the US. <<

One of the 10 ammendments that comprise the Bill of Rights. Revisionist thinking believes that the 2nd ammnedment is a group right while the other 9 are indivdual rights. The 2nd ammendment defines the individual right to self-defense.

Hmm, well, I see about that second ammendment. Well, I don't know the other nine ammendments (no need to quote them for me). The individual's right to self-defense. I agree. What do you mean by treating it as a "group right" - a country's / nation's right for self-defense? If so, I agree either.

Revisionist thinking - the term isn't quite clear to me. What do you mean by that - rethinking and reevaluating all things, even those that are taken for granted? Or some things?

I don't understand the point of the Chamberlain example. This wasn't quite the case where he gave up liberty for safety - he was just doing the lowest thing - attempting to defent himself (his country) on the account of others.

Naturally, it striked back. I don't know many people that won't agree what Chamberlain did was wrong, but there are many people and countries doing the same things today.

>>What do you mean by treating it as a "group right" - a country's / nation's right for self-defense? If so, I agree either. <<

It is the Government's usurping the right of the individual to self-defense. IOW, disarm the subject so that resistance is futile. Sort of like gun control and Microsoft. ;)

>>Revisionist thinking - the term isn't quite clear to me. What do you mean by that - rethinking and reevaluating all things, even those that are taken for granted? Or some things? <<

No. It's interpreting a meaning in such a way that you complete twist the intent so that the final outcome is completely opposite of it's original meaning.

The Federalist Papers are quite clear on the intent of the 2nd ammendment as an individual right. Some folks want to re-interpret this ammendment as a group right. Hence their attempt to prevent citizens from owning guns for self-defense. The idea is that only a "regulated" (i.e., Federal) militia will possess guns. Hence, a group right.

See the 1917 Russian Revolution and the German Nazi Party and the first steps they took to secure THEIR power. They disarmed their subjects.

>>I don't understand the point of the Chamberlain example. This wasn't quite the case where he gave up liberty for safety - he was just doing the lowest thing - attempting to defent himself (his country) on the account of others. <<

???? Did you study history at all? Neville declared "Peace in our time" as he gave away one European country after another to Hitler. He honestly believed you could appease tyranny by giving them everything they want. First the Polish , then the Czechs, then the rest. All in the name of peace and security. Europe wound up with neither.

>>Naturally, it striked back. I don't know many people that won't agree what Chamberlain did was wrong, but there are many people and countries doing the same things today. <<

Appeasing evil never works. September 11th took care of that...I hope.

>>I don't understand the point of the Chamberlain example. This wasn't quite the case where he gave up liberty for safety - he was just doing the lowest thing - attempting to defent himself (his country) on the account of others. <<

???? Did you study history at all? Neville declared "Peace in our time" as he gave away one European country after another to Hitler. He honestly believed you could appease tyranny by giving them everything they want. First the Polish , then the Czechs, then the rest. All in the name of peace and security. Europe wound up with neither.

Yeah, I did study history. I know the events which led to WW2. However, what you wrote shows that you don't know the details. First of all, it was Austria. Hitler annexed it and Britain / France said nothing. Then it was Czechoslovakia. Hitler demanded the Sudets (sp?) to be returned to Germany, and again Britain and France satisfied his claims. It was after that Munchen Agreeement that Chamberlain claimed he had brought "Peace in our time". Then Hitler basically took over all of Czechoslovakia. Only then it was Poland. After Germany invaded Poland, Britain and France declared war upon them. That was the start of WW2, although in the first phase they didn't do much. If you accuse me of not studying history, please be accurate yourself.

We both agree that it was bad. Yes, Chamberlain believed he can buy his country safety AND freedom if he satisfied the tyrant's demands. What was especially bad in this, as I said, that he wanted to do that on account of others. He didn't give away his land - he gave away others' land, which is morally outrageous.

>>Naturally, it striked back. I don't know many people that won't agree what Chamberlain did was wrong, but there are many people and countries doing the same things today. <<

Appeasing evil never works. September 11th took care of that...I hope.

Yes, you are 100% right that appeasing evil never works. Unfortunately, many don't agree with us. They will say that reasoning is better than fighting. They will refuse to look at evil and call it "evil", and they will definitely never confront it.

I don't even hope that the terrorist attack on 11.9 has changed anything, because I've already seen on several occasions that it didn't. There are still as many voices, coming out both from the governors and the common people, saying that it is our wrong attitude that caused this "response", and that we must be more kind and understanding. Nothing changed, and I'm not sure nothing ever will. If 5000 dead didn't change it, why should we think that 5 million would?

Sad.

>>However, what you wrote shows that you don't know the details. <<

I just didn't write them. But you are right, I should have said the Czechs and then the Polish. And the Austrians were willingly annexed by Nazi Germany. Not sure about the Sudetes, but Germany has always claimed the Sudetenland as part of the German Homeland. That, and the natural resources found here.

>>If you accuse me of not studying history, please be accurate yourself. <<

Agreed. However, my concern is that we not only study history, but learn from it too.

Chamberlain's actions are shining examples of what happens when you give up liberty for security. You need the former to obtain the latter, not the other way around. Which brings us back to Ben's quote. :)

>>He didn't give away his land - he gave away others' land, which is morally outrageous. <<

And the bottom line is that Chamberlain gave up Europe's liberty for a false sense of security.

>>Yes, you are 100% right that appeasing evil never works. Unfortunately, many don't agree with us. They will say that reasoning is better than fighting. They will refuse to look at evil and call it "evil", and they will definitely never confront it. <<

I can't remember who said it, but I agree with it:

Let's have a just war followed by a just peace.

Or even: Let's give war a chance.

Sometimes you can only stop evil by destroying it.

>>Nothing changed, and I'm not sure nothing ever will. If 5000 dead didn't change it, why should we think that 5 million would?

Sad. <<

Sad indeed.

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."- Ben Franklin

I think I finally understand what you guys are argueing about... and you are both right - just in different ways. In the context from wich this quote was taken it cannot be reversed. It is meant to convey very strong feelings, and the time it was said must be taken into account for that.

Now, I also understand how logically that statement can be reversed. Going back to the socail contract, we have to give up some of our liberty in order to form together into a society to insure safety. But in that same right, you have the choice to take back your liberty (a little temporary Liberty) at the sacrifice of safety (give up essential Safety). To say that a person deserves neither for sacrificing one is something that I don't agree with, though I can understand how it could be said under the circumstances, and that it is reffering to a greater sacrifice of Liberty than we are discussing. So, there you go.

Now, I'm going to get into a bit of theory here to explain the previous paragraph a bit more- just to warn you that it may get boring.

At the base of human existance we all have complete liberty. The problem is that the mere existence of one individual ultimately comes into conflict with the existence of other individuals. The conflict is both in needs and desires. The problem with this is Social Darwinism - the strong shall live while the weak shall die. Though some would argue that there is nothing wrong with this, it basically means that the average Joe (you or I) would obviously not have the easiest time living. Those who are smarter or stronger than us would have the obvious advantage in expressing their Liberties, while our liberties, though fully expressible, would have consequences that could undermine our safety. So basically you have a world where anybody can do anything they want, and others can retaliate in any way they want. Safety is a very insecure thing.

Now, people are able realize this, and they don't like it. They band together into groups in order to gain safety by working togther, and are protected by one another. But it comes at a price. In order to join the club, you had to relinquish those Liberties that compromised the individuals within the group. See where this is headed. Many people belive that this is the spirit of government: a group protection - at least that's what it's supposed to be. Therefore, since it was societies choice to allow the government that protects them, society (the people) may choose to dissolve the government if it does not fulfill its intent. But the very nature of government is the fact of giving up ones Liberties to some extent in order to gain Safety for an inderterminate amount of time.

I think most people would agree with me that the theory of government and its current state are quite different. Most people have lost more Liberty than they should, but the door swings both ways so to speak. It is very posible, though not very prudent, to take back ones Liberty. The problem is that although this is a good thing in terms of the Social Contract, it is a very bad thing when you are outnumbered. With complete Liberty you can do anything you want, including killing people, stealing from people, etc., and while you have this Liberty, the government still owes it's citizens Safety. So, you can choose to have full Liberty, but in return you sacrifice your Safety from the people that you act against. You can sacrifice essential Safety for a little temporary Liberty, but don't be surprised if society spanks you for it.

And that is that.

My God EllipsusD. You think too hard. ;) j/k