TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- 'Freedom Of Speech' does not exist

'Freedom Of Speech' does not exist

Sometimes I think that the whole freedom of speech thing is not existing. The media, governments and religious groups portray a picture and spread doctrine of freedom of speech or whatever you might label it, but I dont see it.

Is it really freedom of speech when you state your opinion, and then you get jailed for saying it, or ridiculed, bashed for being extremist and sometimes labeled as a criminal or an anarchist. Thats not freedom of speech in my opinion - thats speech control, you can say one thing but not the other.

You can't swear in the media, can't voice your opinion on some political issues (examples: islamic extremism, denial of holocaust), and probably many other examples. We've given this picture of where you have freedom of speech, but wait, you cant say this here, there, etc.

Shouldn't freedom of speech mean exactly FREEDOM OF SPEECH? Aren't we supposed to tolerate what we don't believe in to support this? I believe in Holocaust that it happened, but if French government jails someone who denies it - in my opinion, thats a big big no-no.

Or what about these strict rules on radio and video broadcasting that forbid swearing, voicing your opinions on politics and other 'extreme' issues. Where's freedom of speech? Howard Stern is an excellent example for this.

----------------------
In conclusion, do you think freedom of speech exists and if not, please post some great examples and show the bigger picture ;-)

Freedom of Speech does exist. What freedom of speech does is create a populace to lazy to act. Because their free so they haen't recognized their slavery.

quote:

Originally posted by metalgearsolid Freedom of Speech does exist. What freedom of speech does is create a populace to lazy to act. Because their free so they haen't recognized their slavery.

If it exists, than why does media has so many rules and regulations that prevent you from saying what you want and how you want it on the radio or television?

If it exists, why does a french holocaust denier goes to jail for speaking out on what he believes, no matter how dumb or crazy it is.


Eventually, laws will be passed and are being passed (like Patriot Act) that make any anti-government speeches a possible work of a terrorist, and then you can be thrown in jail.

You are talking about an idealistic freedom of speech.

But in the real world, your freedom ends right at the line where a freedom of another person starts.

You can only talk about the freedom of speech within a group of people who share the same values.

Total freedom in anything cannot exist because if that were to happen, society as a whole would fall apart. It just so happens that democratic societies tend to have more freedom than non-democratic ones.

Freedom of speech is a good ideal. When people do not feel they can express themselves with words, they will express themselves in other ways... often ways which will be more destructive to both themselves, and the society that surrounds them. It is true that words can pose a certain danger to weak-willed individuals, but the danger is greater and more unpredictable if that expression is suppressed.

Even so, most people put far more restrictions upon their own expression than they receive from other sources. They are prisoners of their own fear of being judged by others. And even if no other told them what they could say, they would still be anything but "free." It is for this reason, that most humans readily accept some restrictions upon their speech quite easily. They are accustomed to regulating their own speech according to the parameters of their own insecurity. When someone else does some of the regulating for them... they actually feel more secure.

There is a certain tragedy to their dance. They are weak of character - so paralyzed by their fears that they cannot even speak their own mind. And yet do they strive to become stronger? No, they run from every opportunity to do that. But when an opportunity to become even weaker and more miserable presents itself, they will hastily embrace it. Restrictions upon their expression present such an opportunity. And with so many people embracing these restrictions, how can we expect them to fail in a democratic system?

For a democracy to facilitate freedom, freedom must be the will of the people. However, in many cases, it is not - and consequently democracy becomes antagonistic to freedom, as is becoming the case increasingly at this time.

Because of this, it is obvious that the current state of free speech is the natural outcome of the preceeding phenomena. The emergence of democracy and continued "advances" which have created a day to day life which offers too little adversity to adequately build character among the people are examples of some of the phenomena which have contributed towards an environment that is hostile to genuinely free speech.

From this understanding, we can surmise that the present impositions on free speech will only continue to grow for the time being. However, if you have understood all these phenomena as I have explained them, then you should have already inferred why this trend will eventually reverse itself.

a war in the future ?

a civil war in the future?

Magnetonium: France is a disgrace for free speech.

Since you keep bringing it up

And every country going its path is also a disgrace and a danger to our democracies imo.

quote:

Originally posted by star-traveller You are talking about an idealistic freedom of speech. But in the real world, your freedom ends right at the line where a freedom of another person starts. You can only talk about the freedom of speech within a group of people who share the same values.

That's freedumb of speech, not freedom of speech.

quote:

Originally posted by Magnetonium If it exists, than why does media has so many rules and regulations that prevent you from saying what you want and how you want it on the radio or television? If it exists, why does a french holocaust denier goes to jail for speaking out on what he believes, no matter how dumb or crazy it is. Eventually, laws will be passed and are being passed (like Patriot Act) that make any anti-government speeches a possible work of a terrorist, and then you can be thrown in jail.

1. Decency. Children might be watching. You are basically arguing that because some people dislike hearing obscene and vulgar speech, that you have no freedom of speech. They do not have to accept what you say, which doesn't take away your right to say it.

So we should curse all the time and say nasty things "because we can?"

2. Holocaust denial shouldn't be a crime, I agree, but it is because of the unbelievable power that Jewish people have (in certain countries... I'm not sure if anyone has been sent to jail for that in the U.S). I could say "The Rape of Nanking" never happened, and most people either 1) Wouldn't know what the hell I was talking about or 2) Wouldn't care.

3. You can be against the government to an extent. The result of an anti-government speech is largely dependent on what exactly was said. "Bomb the White House!" isn't really a laughing matter. Expect for them to take that seriously, why wouldn't they? But respectfully dissenting is always OK.. Look at Keith Olbermann.

Re: 'Freedom Of Speech' does not exist

quote:

Originally posted by Magnetonium Sometimes I think that the whole freedom of speech thing is not existing. The media, governments and religious groups portray a picture and spread doctrine of freedom of speech or whatever you might label it, but I dont see it. Is it really freedom of speech when you state your opinion, and then you get jailed for saying it, or ridiculed, bashed for being extremist and sometimes labeled as a criminal or an anarchist. Thats not freedom of speech in my opinion - thats speech control, you can say one thing but not the other. You can't swear in the media, can't voice your opinion on some political issues (examples: islamic extremism, denial of holocaust), and probably many other examples. We've given this picture of where you have freedom of speech, but wait, you cant say this here, there, etc. Shouldn't freedom of speech mean exactly FREEDOM OF SPEECH? Aren't we supposed to tolerate what we don't believe in to support this? I believe in Holocaust that it happened, but if French government jails someone who denies it - in my opinion, thats a big big no-no. Or what about these strict rules on radio and video broadcasting that forbid swearing, voicing your opinions on politics and other 'extreme' issues. Where's freedom of speech? Howard Stern is an excellent example for this. ---------------------- In conclusion, do you think freedom of speech exists and if not, please post some great examples and show the bigger picture ;-)

I think that freedom of speech exists to an extent. Taking the example from above, you cant possibly think that the goverment or media will not take you seriously when you make remarks such as "bomb the white house" or the comment by the Iran leader denying the Holocoast, but what you forget to mention after that is that he also stated that he wants Israel off the map of the earth.

There really cant be total freedom, there is no such thing, so at the same time you will not have total freedom of speech. I understand what your coming with, but taking example Stern, or radios that do not want any swearing, that is because radios are out there for business, and want as many possible listeners as they can get, and by having foul language on it, wont make that any better. So its business in the end they are concerned. Same goes with the media. They want viewers and the more conteversy, the better for them.

Anybody can state thier opinion, about anything and will not get jailed in the U.S. Why are you taking France for an example anyways? You hear alot of opinions and freedom of speech. Take the anit-Bush bandwagon for example.

i agree, true unfettered freedom of speech is probably non-existent everywhere. all governments and communities seem to place restrictions on some forms of speech for a variety of reasons, some all ready mentioned. some of these restrictions on speech make sense, while others do not.


i beleive that the instances where speech is restricted should be limited to a few instances such as when violence is threatened, or intellectual property is concerned. outside of these, speech should not be restricted, even if this someones 'puritan sensibilities' are offended.

quote:

Originally posted by Spacey Orange even if this someones 'puritan sensibilities' are offended.

Even if I call you a fucking nigg**! Does that count?

quote:

Originally posted by Kapedan Even if I call you a fucking nigg**! Does that count?

if you just called me '******' and did or said nothing else, then yes, i'd ok it.

on the other hand, if you say '****** i'm going to lynch your ass tonight', then no.

freedoms dont exist in some kind of vacuum. with rights come responsibilities. absolute free speech doesn't exist anywhere and nor should it.

I've always believed that the US has held some of the strongest free speech protections than nearly any other country ... definitly over Europe. I've started many threads criticizing European speech restrictions. That said, the US does not allow completly "free" speech and you would be hard pressed to find any country that prevents speech above any and all considerations. Quite simply, your freedoms end where mine begin. If I'm making false claims that slander you and materialy hurt you, you can hold me libel. If I make physical threats against you to influence your behaviour I can be charged with extortion. If your offensive speech provokes "ridicule" or "bashing" on my part, but I'm not allowed to speak my opinions freely than how you are not restricting my rights to free speech?

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN freedoms dont exist in some kind of vacuum. with rights come responsibilities. absolute free speech doesn't exist anywhere and nor should it.

+1
Took the words out of my mouth.

It's no different than living in a free democracy.
You have the freedom and choice to do what you want but within limits, hence federal/provincial/state/county laws.
Otherwise it would be chaos...

Can anyone present define what the word Freedom actually means?

Freedom is hard to define as a single concept since it encompasses many different aspects.

Start here and you'll see what I mean...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom

quote:

Originally posted by Fir3start3r Freedom is hard to define as a single concept since it encompasses many different aspects. Start here and you'll see what I mean... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom

I'm glad you replied with this; I appreciate that you understand where I'm coming from.

Sometimes I feel like the word freedom itself is just a marketing tool used to foster nationalism.

Words are so easily manipulated over time... example:

Ministry of War -> Department of Defence.

Can anyone name a single country that does not tell its people that they have "Freedom"?

quote:

Originally posted by DJ Shibby I'm glad you replied with this; I appreciate that you understand where I'm coming from. Sometimes I feel like the word freedom itself is just a marketing tool used to foster nationalism. Words are so easily manipulated over time... example: Ministry of War -> Department of Defence. Can anyone name a single country that does not tell its people that they have "Freedom"?

I'm not sure what your point is. The limited ability of a single word to express the full intent and nuance of an idea is hardly a new or interesting observation.

quote:

Originally posted by Arbiter I'm not sure what your point is. The limited ability of a single word to express the full intent and nuance of an idea is hardly a new or interesting observation.

I'm not sure what your point is either.

quote:

Originally posted by Spacey Orange if you just called me '******' and did or said nothing else, then yes, i'd ok it. on the other hand, if you say '****** i'm going to lynch your ass tonight', then no.

In that case you should have the right to beat the shit out of him.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.