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 ;-)

___________________
Whenever you go and buy something, you are affecting someone somewhere, be it environment, a person, or a community - you're making a statement with what you buy. So make it a smart choice ... Its a big 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.

___________________
Whenever you go and buy something, you are affecting someone somewhere, be it environment, a person, or a community - you're making a statement with what you buy. So make it a smart choice ... Its a big picture

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.

___________________
"The Greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." -Stephen Hawking
"First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a communist;
Then they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a socialist;
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a trade unionist;
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out— because I was not a Jew;
Then they came for me— and there was no one left to speak out for me." -Martin Niemöller

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.

___________________
"If she's old enough to crawl, she's already in position." -- Pedobear

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.