I am thankful for the Internet and for hackers everywhere who work to keep it free.

But we forget it's only a matter of time...

http://news.cnet.com/Create-an-e-annoyance,-go-to-jail/2010-1028_3-6022491.html

http://www.securecomputing.net.au/Feature/86435,censorship-bloggers-in-jail.aspx

http://sambrook.typepad.com/sacredfacts/2008/12/more-online-journalists-jailed.html

so when we think we have freedoms... they are in fact limited and watched

From the site listed...



I would like to see more on this case.



This was part of the knee-jerk reaction to 9-11. There is much controversy surrounding much of the Patriot Act and the Dept. of Homeland Security's methods.

It is a tight rope to walk, no matter how it is viewed. Should another organization develop a plan to attack the US from within and succeed in doing so the results could be detrimental in so many ways, even if the casualty count were low. This is especially true considering the state of the union at this time.

Human rights are involved, none-the-less. I would hope that our government could and would choose means to secure our country without having to resort to what amounts to a removal of privacy.

I believe that posing a direct threat is grounds for censorship.

You sound like a politician Creative.

quote:
"This was part of the knee-jerk reaction to 9-11. There is much controversy surrounding much of the Patriot Act and the Dept. of Homeland Security's methods."

DUH... NO KIDDING.


The Patriot Act was drawn up BEFORE 9-11. The attack on the world Trade Center was part of the plan and had been for years before it actually took place.

A similar act was put into practice in Hitler's Germany after a major government building was blown up.

The people would never allow such an freedom stealing act giving government that much power over them to be placed into law under normal circumstances.

It only takes a little panic and a little public support to push such an act through. The powers that run this world carefully planed the attack on the world trade center. Many wealthy people got richer as a result of that crime.

Osama ben Laden had nothing to do with 9-11. Osama Ben Laden, was trained by and working for the CIA. The CIA is owned by the secret non-company connected to the Throne of England and the Vatican. Blaming 9-11 on Osama Ben Laden was their way of "firing" him for his disobedience. They fired him because he started burning down the crops in Afganistan used to produced drugs for the Bush Cartel, (Legal and illegal) Ely Lilly, drug corp. etc.

The Bush Cartel goes back three generations to Daddy Bush who was involved with companies who financed Hitler. Do a google search for the unauthorized biography of George Bush Sr. to read up on that. Its a matter of History too.

Both elections for George W. Bush Jr. were rigged. He should have never been president. He invaded Iraq without consent of congress and with no good cause.

So what happened to Osama Ben Laden? He is protected by "the company" as he is a Royal Prince.

So our attention is pointed at Saddam H who was also trained and sponsored by the CIA and Turkey. He was trained as an assassin with the hope that he would overthrown the current dictator of Iraq. He succeeded finally and surprised his sponsors. But he got too big for his britches and stopped cooperating and became a threat to the Bush's. They wanted him out.

That's the news according to my sources anyway.

if the human mind is taking in mass media, more so than EVER IN ANY PAST HISTORY, fantasy technologically advanced to almost appear as reality, then IF THE MOUTH CANNOT SPEAK BOTH GOOD AND BAD AS GOOD, then many things as fantasy are left in the brain making one MORE PRONE to not knowing true greatest reality, WHICH ONLY COME FROM WHAT BE TRUE SELF EXPOSED IN THE DALYLIGHT???

what be TRUE SELF???

to not speak all the mind due to any fear of "NEATIVE" POTENTIAL, is to kill the heart unto emotional death in time, which lead to many acts of desperation to create feelings???

if the body must PASS OUT ALL UNEEDED THINGS, then the mind must do this as well as the body, most in a CURRENT time as today, to come to ANY WHOLE HEALTH OF MIND AND BODY, WHICH THEN CREATE A WHOLE HEALTHY SPIRIT>>>OR JUST THE MOST GOOD ENERGY POSSIBLE???

the conscious mind GREATEST BATTLE, is to believe it's words that it see HURT ANOTHER, did good, and to not take the guilt, except to tell it the NEXT GOOD OR BAD WORDS TO SPEAK THAT ARE EQUAL AND GREAT???

the same as to say, IF ONE CANNOT SPEAK ALL TO ANOTHER, GOOD AND BAD, THEN "WHAT TRUE FRIENDSHIP ACTUALLY EXIST AT ALL???

to envision friendship is ONLY GOOD WORDS BETWEEN TWO, IS TO SERVE ONLY AN "EMPTY HOLLOW IMAGE" OF WHAT FRIENDSHIP OR TRUE LOVE OR REALITY OR SANITY BE???

Freedom of speech definitely has it's own drawbacks as well...

I would agree with the contingencys, however can you show me a free society?

to allow the drawbacks of free speech to be left as "percieved as drawbacks", is as to believe defecation be a drawback to eating???

which help and provide for self more???

anything that have the guide of all actions and words and things as equal, bring forth the true wisdom from within, that guide anything to what it most wish to know in all things???

the mind be a teacher, that tell self a half truth, awaiting for the greater awareness to add the other half, TO MAKE A WHOLE???

if the mind say it is a NEGATIVE, the sure and confident sight of wisdom see it is not, and rather see it is but only WISDOM HIDING, AWAITING TO BE DISCOVERED???

The level of freedom within our society is not in question in terms of having absolute freedom, of course there is no absolutely free society. The very notion is an impossible concept. There must be guidelines and rules.




In this case davidben, the drawback was concerning the ability to maintain focus while simultaneously respecting all persons' freedom of speech. One drawback to freedom of speech is when a discussion is interrupted by a "new" participant who uses their freedom and disturbs what was a directed and logical flow by inserting some completely irrelevant and immaterial information.





I would attest to the fact that if and when all words and sources are/were held as equal, then there is definitely some judgemental compromise somewhere... somehow... someway...

Though, this is not directed at your contributions...

As with all guidelines and rules concerning a society so will be the freedom of speech. I think that being PC is the new way for this to happen. As with all rules and guidelines if they become stifling then they go too far. If people think they are not monitored on the internet they are being foolish. Something this open and unhindered, what a gold mine for the monitors. What they do with the information is then the concern.

Look at how easily Americans were willing to give away their civil rights when they were told the sacrifice was in the name of national security.

I believe in freedom of speech, freedom of religion or lack of, freedom of sexual orientation within the laws about age and violence of course, etc.... I can personally denounce any that I find offensive and personally not participate but if I am forced at any level to suffer it because others think I should, that is a violation of my rights as I see it. Forcing can be as simple as prayer at a public event, for example.

I don't see anything wrong with the being PC thing, it helps people think of the feelings of others. Being PC is not a forced thing, it has been an evolving process of consideration of all. This can be a good thing for those who have been exposed to say racists for most of their lives and they are ignorant of the fact that this or that actually offends others. Or at least that is the way I see it.

I am the forever optimist so I may be showing too much hope.

I am tired so I hope this makes sense.

I am trying to portray here about balance. The availabiltiy to swing to any side of the pendulum (which would actually have millions of sides technically) but finding that the balance of self understanding, self respect, self control and empathy, tolerance, understanding works well when looking where to be in a comfortable place in our lives, right?

You know I just thought of this but freedom does not mean that there is no consequences for what is said either, right?

I will fight for the right to say what you want to say or write but I would also let someone know there are responsibilities that go with all freedoms.

I explained this to my children when they thought that being an adult meant freedom with no consequesnces. With everything in life comes a consequence.

Precisely. Freedom is like movement. You are free to move in any direction you choose. If you choose to move right off a cliff, well . . .

This consequence may make you change your mind, but that is not a restriction, its a consequence, there is a distinction.

Sure.

It's the society of chaos and disorder.

This is why when I say that in order to be totally free we must be willing to accept total responsibility. The amount of freedom we have is directly related to our willingness to accept responsibility for everything that we manifest with our thoughts and actions.

Dragoness wrote...



I commend the content of this response! You have effectively what I feel is THE root of the inherent paradoxical issue regarding freedom of speech, offensiveness.



I would have to disagree with some of this part though. Being politically correct(PC) is, in fact, the forcing of a speaker to change his/her descriptive terms and/or language in an attempt to be less offensive to others. The concept of PC becomes a much more complex issue to entertain when considering the rights of both, the speaker and the listener.

The following is from the OP...



Do we have a "right" to be offended? What exactly is at the heart of the notion.

What does it mean to be offended?

Are there not inalienable rights belonging to the speaker being violated by mandated change in terminology?




JB wrote this...



In order to be "totally free" one must be free from ALL things, which includes responsibility.



I would agree that the amount of freedom is directly related to the amount of responsibility that we assume for our actions, however, the more we accept responsibility the less free we are, not the other way around!

I disagree. If you are free to accept responsibility, you are also free to refuse it if you so choose. (That is the power in your hands.) If you willing accept responsibility, you are also free to reject that responsibility at your discretion. Therein lies your freedom.

We are always free from the responsibility for others if we choose to be.

The lack of freedom you are referring to is something that would have to be imposed upon you by a higher authority than yourself. When you are your own (and only) final authority, you are always free to do and think as you choose. Accepting responsibility for what you do and think is accepting any consequences for your actions, regardless what they are.

Example: If I am my own authority and I choose to do something illegal, and I decide to accept the consequences, then I agree to them, be it jail or whatever.

Can you be free in Jail? Certainly not in the physical sense. But you are still free to think and act within your confines and within your power. (You sacrificed your physical freedom willingly when you agreed to accept the consequences for your illegal actions.)

As far as responsibility for others is concerned, no one can force it on someone else. But they can enforce consequences upon perpetrators for crimes. Will that punishment force a person to willingly accept responsibility for others or for his actions ? Not always. They can go to prison screaming that they are innocent and never accept any responsibility for anything.

Now in prison, they have less responsibility. They don't have to pay rent, they don't have to pay child support, they don't have to give a crap about anything or anybody either.

So they are free from responsibility, but they are not free in the physical sense, to do or to live their life as they choose.

And as far as I am concerned, that's the kind of freedom I want. Not freedom from responsibility. I want freedom to do and to live as I choose. For this, you must accept responsibility.. willingly.

If you want freedom from responsibility, then you can do as you please -- and end up in prison. You will be free from responsibility there.

So I guess it depends on what kind of freedom you want.

so, you are effectively pronouncing with your words that;

anything that meets not your approval has less ability, so it be drawback???

anything considered by you as outsider is "new" to yourself, so it be a drawback???

anything not approved by you as good focus is less focus than yours, so be a drawback???

anything not deemed as good logic by you, is as an less logic than yourself, and be a drawback???

anything perceieved by you as inbterrupting to self, is an interruption to you, so be a drawback???

anything not deemed as relevant to you, is as irrelevant, so be a drawback???

anything not deemed as good material by you is as immaterial, so be a drawback???

wow, seven drawbacks taken by yourself from another's ONE SENTECNE???

and seven times you do what the ONE SENTENCE WARNED OF???

it appears the ONE SENTENCE posted had much relevance, to the very essence of free speech???

free speech is SPEECH EMBRACED AS HAVING EQUAL VALUE OF SELF SPEECH???

it does not appear you believe in free speech at all, and only deem speech approved as good by you, as anything deseving to even speak???

all these drawbacks from only one sentence???

it seems like seven very good reasons why self should NEVER ALLOW IT'S MIND TO SEE FREE SPEECH AS A DRAWBACK, AS SOON MANY PEOPLE ARE AS DRAWBACKS???

perhaps another reason it was posted???

i could only imagine a whole paragraph from another that you do not deem as fitting and of equal intelligence to yourself, lol???

it seems you indeed need to injest what was written as a sick one injest a antedote???

how can it not be seen by your superior intelligence that deem many other's as "drawbacks", that defined free speech by self deeming what be good speech only commission the brain to become the "dictator of other's speech", and to only believe it's singular brain as the wisest brain, so this brain become a very controlling one, and may even lead to verbal abuse naturally, and indeed given due time, physical abuse can result, IF THIS BELIEF IS FED BY SEELKING OUT ONLY THOSE THAT AGREE WITH SELF???

once called the DEVIL OF SELF VALIDATION, LOL???

indeed, it does not seem this be a most wise logic to continue using, as the profit shall be only what self really does not want, as this tell self it be the victor of good belief, and as a slight of hand, make many one love as victims, and in the end, self fall on it's own sword, the saddest victim become self???

it appears i am already a drawback to you and many, many other's as well???

every ounce of energy you have will rightfully so oppose what was written, as it fly in the face of the self pride you hold dear, which is only self served as singular, except of course, for anything one can find to agree with self???

it is not missed you have been told the same repeatedly, so perhaps my words on top of all the other's will make some difference, but somehow this seems to be a long shot, as you still love to make self right too much to heed the words of an "OUTSIDER", but how is it than your own words tell the tale of yourself to an outsider then???

you must not be actually hearing the essence of what you are speaking, and this only come from deeming many other's as wrong all one's life???

how many good people can your sight percieve these days CR???

let me guess???

HARDLY NONE???

ALL SPEAKERS WISH FOR FREE SPEECH, BUT FEW RECIEVE THE SAME BACK, AS TO HEAR ALL WITH VALUE, BE THE ONLY TRUE TWO WAY STREET OF FREE SPEECH???

WITHOUT THIS, THERE IS ONLY SCRUTINY OF OTHER'S, AND SCRUTINY OF SELF FROM OTHER'S, DESPISED???

THERE IS NO INTEGRITY UNLESS ALL WORDS ARE EMBRACED, AND ALL SCRUTINY AS WELCOMED!!!

it is not missed dear CR, many and many and many, all dictator's, deemed many words and many other's as drawbacks, and other's speech as irrelevant???

wink, wink, wink...

WE ARE ALL REALLY JUST A HOLOGRAPHIC REALITY INSIDE THE HOLODECK CHAMBER ON BOARD JEANNIEBEAN'S STARSHIP.

JB wrote...






If one did as they pleased freely they would not end up in jail, because they would not be held responsible...





davidben wrote...



Nope...that is what you wrote.



Nope...that is what you wrote.



Nope...that is what you wrote.



Nope...that is what you wrote.



Nope...that is what you wrote.



Nope...that is what you wrote.



Nope...that is what you wrote.



You are mistaken here davidben, the "seven drawbacks" were taken by you... from my sentence, not taken by me from another's... keep in mind that your words are not accurate reflections of my intent. They are accurate reflections of what you think my thoughts are.



I did???



It appears that you are confusing not only your definition of free speech with mine, but also your interpretation with my intent.



You, as a person, are not at all a drawback to me, davidben...



All words embraced???? Uh.... no! There is a remedy for that...

Discernment.



Are you attempting to equate my being annoyed at irrelevant interruptions to the likes of a dictatorship? That is a hoot!!!

Here is what I wrote...



Have you never had a good conversation be interrupted by another who had no idea what you were talking about? Surely you can relate.

I'm talking about how personal freedom functions in the real world, not some fantasy world where everyone is all powerful. Even criminals like George Bush, although he won't go to jail, will reap the consequences of his thoughts and actions.