hey, im writing an essay on freedom of speech and expression in our society and i was wondering what other people think about it. do you believe we do have freedom? or, like me, do you believe we live in a nanny state, our thoughts controlled by the media and our lives controlled by the government?
Freedom of Speech
- Thread starter Elbystar
- Start date
In my country we are free. Of course e.g. a certain medias/channels/newspapers support a certain party even they claim not to... but I still believe in my country people can think by themselves and not blindly follow the media.
Even I know media is not controlled by our government.
Alrighty fine... when it comes to Russian news...we may still be careful what to say...
But it's my country.
Even I know media is not controlled by our government.
Alrighty fine... when it comes to Russian news...we may still be careful what to say...
But it's my country.
Dynamo1
Head of the Swing Shift
Even though here in America we are taught that we have freedom of speech, it is not really so.
> The networks censor movies, television shows, and radio shows.
> People can be sued for lible and slander.
> People can be removed from public events if wearing a T-shirt with an opposing message.
> Prayer is not allowed in public schools due to separation of church and state.
But I think we might be better off than those in many other countries.
> The networks censor movies, television shows, and radio shows.
> People can be sued for lible and slander.
> People can be removed from public events if wearing a T-shirt with an opposing message.
> Prayer is not allowed in public schools due to separation of church and state.
But I think we might be better off than those in many other countries.
MiaCharlize
Coroner
We discussed that at school, like way back then. It's tragic that people hate each other for their opinions.
Aren't we supposed to all speak our minds? Of course, mindful of not disrespecting others, but I can very well criticize people without belitteling who they are or what they believe in.
At the same time I can take criticism. If one can't do that, they should not voice negative thoughts about others.
And really, where would we be if we killed anyone we don't agree with? The world would be a pretty empty place...
Aren't we supposed to all speak our minds? Of course, mindful of not disrespecting others, but I can very well criticize people without belitteling who they are or what they believe in.
At the same time I can take criticism. If one can't do that, they should not voice negative thoughts about others.
And really, where would we be if we killed anyone we don't agree with? The world would be a pretty empty place...
quoth_the_raven
Corpse
I just sent an anonymous email to my local news stations, actually, on this matter. I had an experience in seventh grade that I felt was unjust. My teacher said something offensive, not only to me but to many other people in the world, and I stood up and said so, but the school did nothing but defend my teacher. No one listened to my voice, my opinion, or my version of the story. It ultimately ended up with me leaving the school and now I'm in homeschooling. Just because students and kids are young doesn't mean that they don't have voices.
Roka4csi
Coroner
I don't believe there really is freedom of speech, you're all so quick to argue against how the Muslims reacted to the cartoons since that was merely free speech, but look at the dozens of people arrested for denying the holocaust. I dare any of you to write an article for one of your papers denying that the holocaust ever happened, and see if you get away with it or not. So don't focus your attention to how the Muslims are running your democracy, you've got to go in depth.
Something I posted in the New World Order thread too, a nurse in the US was given a ticket for her anti-Bush bumper sticker (becuase it had "profanity") which I don't really understand becuase I've seen dirtier bumper stickers that cops have merely laughed at and not issued $100 tickets for.
Freedom of speech doesn't exist in the West, nor does it exist in the Middle East. You can say what you want, but you'd have to bear with the consequences, and I'm starting to think its easier to get away with saying what you want in the Middle East than it would be in America, for example. Or France.
And Elby, no you would not be shot if you went to a Muslim country, I think you people feed yourselves too much of the stereotypical views of Muslim society, any intelligent person looks at both sides. Yes, some Muslims have reacted rather stupidly to the cartoons, because it was a sensitive issue to Muslims (in Islam you cannot even draw what you think the Prophet may have looked like, which ever prophet it is, Muhammad, Jesus, Moses...etc). They reacted with violence and rage which contradicts the Quran, and that was the stupid part of this issue. But that doesn't mean you would get killed for being a Christian in a Muslim country :lol: I think that's only what the media wants you to think.
Also, Al-Manar tv was banned in the West because it brought up "anger and hatred", which is kind of funny if you think about it becuase the things Manar TV would speak about are in the exact context of what Western news channels speak about, only about opposite sides. I guess its okay to speak your mind on the news if you're Christian, but if you're Muslim and have a problem with israeli occupation of Arab land, your news channels are automatically labeled "terrorist" and your freedom of speech/media is taken away.
Gotta love politics :lol:
Something I posted in the New World Order thread too, a nurse in the US was given a ticket for her anti-Bush bumper sticker (becuase it had "profanity") which I don't really understand becuase I've seen dirtier bumper stickers that cops have merely laughed at and not issued $100 tickets for.
Freedom of speech doesn't exist in the West, nor does it exist in the Middle East. You can say what you want, but you'd have to bear with the consequences, and I'm starting to think its easier to get away with saying what you want in the Middle East than it would be in America, for example. Or France.
And Elby, no you would not be shot if you went to a Muslim country, I think you people feed yourselves too much of the stereotypical views of Muslim society, any intelligent person looks at both sides. Yes, some Muslims have reacted rather stupidly to the cartoons, because it was a sensitive issue to Muslims (in Islam you cannot even draw what you think the Prophet may have looked like, which ever prophet it is, Muhammad, Jesus, Moses...etc). They reacted with violence and rage which contradicts the Quran, and that was the stupid part of this issue. But that doesn't mean you would get killed for being a Christian in a Muslim country :lol: I think that's only what the media wants you to think.
Also, Al-Manar tv was banned in the West because it brought up "anger and hatred", which is kind of funny if you think about it becuase the things Manar TV would speak about are in the exact context of what Western news channels speak about, only about opposite sides. I guess its okay to speak your mind on the news if you're Christian, but if you're Muslim and have a problem with israeli occupation of Arab land, your news channels are automatically labeled "terrorist" and your freedom of speech/media is taken away.
Gotta love politics :lol:
allmaple
Judge
its true that there really isnt freedom of speech, you cant go around making hateful comments to certain groups of people and expect to get away with it. but if you want to be an ass then technically, you should be able to.
i think theyre just trying to protect people. they protect children by censoring movies and music from offensive language (although in canada, if its after 9pm anything is fair game) and no one should be called derogitory names just because someone thinks its their right to free speech. i would say its more of a privilage, not to be abused or it will be taken away from you.
in the media, they have the responsibility to report the news as accuractely and honestly as possible. it may be free speech, but a reporter cant go around saying 'the citizens of costa rica are banding together to invade the us and kill everyone'
and i always laugh when someone sues over whats been said or published. its such a waste of time to the courts. like right now, vince vaughn is suing a british tabloid that said he cheated on jennifer anniston. give me an effing break! you know you didnt do it, she knows you didnt do it, thats all that matters. its not going to stop me from seeing his movies whether it was true or not. although i do think less of him for sueing, its just childish.
i think theyre just trying to protect people. they protect children by censoring movies and music from offensive language (although in canada, if its after 9pm anything is fair game) and no one should be called derogitory names just because someone thinks its their right to free speech. i would say its more of a privilage, not to be abused or it will be taken away from you.
in the media, they have the responsibility to report the news as accuractely and honestly as possible. it may be free speech, but a reporter cant go around saying 'the citizens of costa rica are banding together to invade the us and kill everyone'
and i always laugh when someone sues over whats been said or published. its such a waste of time to the courts. like right now, vince vaughn is suing a british tabloid that said he cheated on jennifer anniston. give me an effing break! you know you didnt do it, she knows you didnt do it, thats all that matters. its not going to stop me from seeing his movies whether it was true or not. although i do think less of him for sueing, its just childish.
I don't think not publishing "hatemessages" is against freedom of speech. Seriously. Think of it.
Do we really need to have e.g.neonazis on our newspapers? Or other little evil activist groups that has no other meaning than to harm some other group.
Roka, don't judge whole western world for what US medias have done.
Of course we can think that Reuterns is owned (or was invented?) by jewish people. then you can start to think are they as liable as everyone thinks?
Tho I have to admit some people freaked out when our president gave interview to al-Jazeera. Don't know why.
Freedom of speech. Seriously. Go to search history of Soviet Union and you know what it is not freedom of speech.
Do we really need to have e.g.neonazis on our newspapers? Or other little evil activist groups that has no other meaning than to harm some other group.
Roka, don't judge whole western world for what US medias have done.
Of course we can think that Reuterns is owned (or was invented?) by jewish people. then you can start to think are they as liable as everyone thinks?
Tho I have to admit some people freaked out when our president gave interview to al-Jazeera.
Don't know why.Freedom of speech. Seriously. Go to search history of Soviet Union and you know what it is not freedom of speech.
right....ive been researching freedom of speech in detail for my essay.....there are powerful overlapping arguments for free speech as a basic political principle in any liberal democracy. free speech is not a simple and absolute concpet, but a liberty that is justified by even deeper values. the values essention in the various justifications for free speech may not apply equally strongly to all kinds of speech in all circumastances.
freedom of speech itself can be described as the state of being free to speak as you wish without restraint or censorship, speech which is exempt from the control of another. we are guranteed freedom of speech under international law through numerous human rights instruments, notably under article 19 of the universal declaration of human rights and article 10 of the european convention on human rights. the right to freedom of speech, however, is not absolute in any country, although the degree of freedom varies. industrialized countries also have varying approaches to balance freedom with oreder. for example, the united states first amendment theoretically grants absolute freedom, placing the responsobility upon the state to demonstrated whe, or if, a limitation of this freedom is necessary.
theres much much more, but this is a basic argument....
freedom of speech itself can be described as the state of being free to speak as you wish without restraint or censorship, speech which is exempt from the control of another. we are guranteed freedom of speech under international law through numerous human rights instruments, notably under article 19 of the universal declaration of human rights and article 10 of the european convention on human rights. the right to freedom of speech, however, is not absolute in any country, although the degree of freedom varies. industrialized countries also have varying approaches to balance freedom with oreder. for example, the united states first amendment theoretically grants absolute freedom, placing the responsobility upon the state to demonstrated whe, or if, a limitation of this freedom is necessary.
theres much much more, but this is a basic argument....
Roka4csi
Coroner
It's not about publishing hate messages, DaWacko. It's freedom of speech to speak your side of the story that's why i mentioned Al Manar. It was banned because it makes the israelis look bad, but all the Western news channels (and I say WESTERN becuase so far I haven't heard of ONE SINGLE news channel in any Western country that wasn't biased towards the Jews and that made Arabs look like crap), well they all make the israelis look like innocent victims, all you ever hear is "15 israelis were killed by a suicide bomber; 3 israeli teens died when palestinian terrorists shot at them...bla bla bla" do you ever hear the other side? Very rarely. So if freedom of speech is cut from the Muslims because they defend the other side, I don't think any freedom of speech exists. I think how much freedom one has is within the leader's expectations and how much your government thinks you can be "free".
Allmaple, trust me, by having Disney and Cartoonnetwork control their shows and make sure no cursing/obscenity is in their cartoons or shows, that's not enough to protect a kid from cursing, because they can easily flip the channel an hear some derogitory words on an adult channel. And I bet you could get away with a bumper sticker that curses Elvis or Britney Spears... but once it comes to Bush your freedom of speech is limited? It makes no sense.
I know what you mean allmaple, I took a Human Rights course last semester, and I actually handed him a paper that I worked on about the contradictions within the Universal Declaration of Human Rights - this was something I always argued about in class.
When you say freedom of speech and then limit how much freedom one has, that's a contradiction right there. Don't call it absolute freedom if you're going to put borders on it. Little freedom exists when you live in a cage.
check this out
Allmaple, trust me, by having Disney and Cartoonnetwork control their shows and make sure no cursing/obscenity is in their cartoons or shows, that's not enough to protect a kid from cursing, because they can easily flip the channel an hear some derogitory words on an adult channel. And I bet you could get away with a bumper sticker that curses Elvis or Britney Spears... but once it comes to Bush your freedom of speech is limited? It makes no sense.
I know what you mean allmaple, I took a Human Rights course last semester, and I actually handed him a paper that I worked on about the contradictions within the Universal Declaration of Human Rights - this was something I always argued about in class.
When you say freedom of speech and then limit how much freedom one has, that's a contradiction right there. Don't call it absolute freedom if you're going to put borders on it. Little freedom exists when you live in a cage.
check this out
allmaple
Judge
which is exactly why i consider it the 'privilege' of free speech
with the television, at times when children may be watching and have a chance to flip to an 'adult' channel, they are censored or simply not allowed to use foul language at these times. Same thing with the radio, except i think at all times the swearing is removed from songs. simply stating 'theyll hear it eventually' doesnt mean a 5 year old should be seeing shows on tv with sex, violence, or bad language. thats why its censored.
its been a long time since my civics course in high school, but if i remember correctly, arent you entitled to your rights as long as it doesnt take away the rights of another person? i could pick someone at random and tell them everyday i was going to kill them, its my right to free speech isnt it? but then they would no longer feel safe and that is taking a right away from them.
with the television, at times when children may be watching and have a chance to flip to an 'adult' channel, they are censored or simply not allowed to use foul language at these times. Same thing with the radio, except i think at all times the swearing is removed from songs. simply stating 'theyll hear it eventually' doesnt mean a 5 year old should be seeing shows on tv with sex, violence, or bad language. thats why its censored.
its been a long time since my civics course in high school, but if i remember correctly, arent you entitled to your rights as long as it doesnt take away the rights of another person? i could pick someone at random and tell them everyday i was going to kill them, its my right to free speech isnt it? but then they would no longer feel safe and that is taking a right away from them.
Roka4csi
Coroner
Exactly, that was one of the things I argued last semester. How can you fully enjoy your right to freedom when it can at times limit someone else's freedom or harm them? And who decides what the limits are?
I don't think songs which are censored stop a kid from hearing it early on - think about it, how tempting is it for a kid to know why they *beeped* out a word from the song? The curiousity would eventually win over and they'd end up hearing it anyway.
This is such a controversial issue, I love it
I don't think songs which are censored stop a kid from hearing it early on - think about it, how tempting is it for a kid to know why they *beeped* out a word from the song? The curiousity would eventually win over and they'd end up hearing it anyway.
This is such a controversial issue, I love it