all conversations are good???

why do you break them into good and bad, as to do this, will make self deem only itself good???

and just as was said, you deem each word from another as no realtiy at all???

yes indeed, those are all things i said, that your words tell, a reality you do not see, no true sight of reality left in thee.

for each negative word of self, that self denied it's entire life, has added up dear CR, and the past come swifty now to meet thee, and beckon at your door, to make love to you and bring you to the floor.

your reality has shrunken to be only your own words dear one, and shall continue to get smaller, and elation that flood the brain each time it deny another's reality, from believing self realtiy is the only one of worth or sight, even from this day foward, shall shrink into a vortex of no ability of mind, even unto the physical self wondering why it cannot control itself.

somebody is decieved unto delusion dear CR???

who is it???

which is it???

for indeed fate this day has brought you to me, and reality as fate indeed you shall see.

sit back, light up a fine cigar, pour yourself a strong drink, as you shall need it to handle what you see, as you watch each word unfold and show you reality, then come back and tell me it was i my friend, that spoke in ignorance to thee.

not one letter, not one dot, not one essence, not one word, is not as already come to be, and the future indeed shall be the decree, of what true reality be.

unpeace to peace, but singular eye's they shall see.

JB wrote...



So am I. The topic is freedom of speech, and the direction of the conversation has been towards the need for discernment between sources and/or words, for without such a thing, one must place equal value upon contradicting information. Therefore, the need for discernment is a necessary bi-product of having freedom of speech. This alone requires personal judgement, which is a product of language to begin with.




davidben wrote...



I previously described what was considered to be "good" in this instance with words other than "good" only to have that description misinterpreted by another's perceptual faculty...hence, a drawback necessarily stemming from freedom of speech.

Is being misunderstood considered a "good" thing?



I never deemed "each word from another as [having] no reality at all". My words only tell you, davidben, what your perception allows, which may or may not be an accurate interpretation.

How is your blatently open claim that I have no "true sight of reality" any different than your falsely accusing me of thinking the same about others?

Discernment.







Is that so?



I take it that you were offended by something I said?



Allow me to hold up a mirror for you, my friend.

How does this relate to freedom of speech?

The topic between us was not freedom of speech. You responded to a statement I made about freedom and responsibility.

I had said:
"This is why when I say that in order to be totally free we must be willing to accept total responsibility."

You responded:

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

Neither one of those remarks were about freedom of speech. At least I had not intended them to be. I was responding only to your remark to my statement in regard to freedom and responsibility, (not freedom of speech.)

I responded to you, saying that if you want freedom "from" responsibility, then you can do something illegal and end up in prison. You have no responsibility there.

I don't know what you think our discussion is about, but from my point of observation, it is about basic freedom as it relates to responsibility.

Yet you said:

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

But in the real world, everyone is held responsible in some way and there are always consequences to pay for your actions. The only way you can be totally free to do what ever you want with out being held responsible is if you are an all powerful being, so you are not talking about the real world.

I realize you are carrying on two different conversations here, and if it is too much to keep track of what we are actually talking about, then I will just stop responding, because you are either getting confused or trying to deflect the topic to something else that we are not even talking about.

If your only point is the 'need for discernment between sources and/or words, and all the rest of your statement above, then I agree, but that is not what we (or I) were/was talking about.

jb

I realize what was being said and why. I was deliberately redirecting the conversation back to what had been the topic at hand, which I happen to find an interesting one.

This thread has actually been a great example of the other considerations one must keep in mind when contemplating freedom of speech.

As has been implied, “free speech” and "censorship" are the flip sides of the same coin. Both are a product of majority rule. The majority decides what constitutes “free speech” and what constitutes “censorship”. (Actually, it would probably be more accurate to use the phrase “those in power” instead of “the majority”. But the principle is the same. Whoever has the power gets to enforce their opinion.)

But that’s just the social/political/legal aspect.

Philosophically, CreativeSoul brought up a very good point about the “rights” of the speaker versus the listener. If one has a “right” to be offended, where do you draw the line? Is there any reason why the speaker should not have the right to be offended at the response of the listener? From a strictly philosophical viewpoint, there is no intrinsic difference.

The difference is strictly a social/political/legal distinction made by whomever carries the biggest stick.

Personally, I think the only practical solution is for both parties to take equal responsibility for the situation.
Anything else just devolves into a blame game.

You cannot restrict freedom of speech just because someone might be offended because some people are offended by everything, so it is a matter of personal opinion what is offensive.

Freedom of speech as far as the media is concerned only applies to who ever owns the newspaper or website. A newspaper owner should not be restricted by government to print the news or the truth. That is freedom of speech. But we don't have freedom of speech in this country in that regard because the government(or someone) does restrict what a newspaper can print and that includes the truth.

Where are these restrictions coming from? The government? Its hard to tell. They may come from higher up than the government. They may come from the owners of the corporations that own the government and the newspapers. (The United States Of America is a corporation.)

Newspapers have strict guidelines on what they can and cannot print. The press is not free and the newspapers that do dare to print the truth are watched very closely and they are not allowed to have a large distribution and they are sometimes threatened or bought outright by a large company owned by those who control the media.

The media is controlled on a large scale because public opinion shapes the way governments are empowered and run. Pictures of the dead coming home from war are not allowed in the massive media and other negative reports about the war are not allowed until such time when it is desired to sway massive public opinion against a certain action or war.

People who think the 'freedom of speech' issue has to do with permitting people to spread lies and insults don't understand the issue. It is supposed to be about printing and reporting the truth in public or in the media.

We do NOT have freedom of speech in this country. We are free only to the extent they allow us to be and that is barely enough to give the illusion that we have freedom of speech and freedom of the press.

Just try running a small newspaper and find out about all the regulations and rules. Just try printing the truth about some crop circle or some cattle mutilation, or some other thing the government does not want people to know about and see how much freedom of speech you really have.

Freedom of speech on the Internet:

If I own and publish my own website I can put anything on it I want (except child pornography.) If I disclose private information about someone they can sue me, or if I post an add for a contract killer, I can certainly be investigated by the authorities.

If you post the truth about someone on your website, they can still file a law suit or threaten you with one. Whether they can win it or not, is another matter.

I did this once so here is what happened. I was hosting my website with a reseller so technically he was my publisher on the Internet. The person I was writing about was a fraud, a bully and an Internet bad guy and he hired a lawyer and sent threatening letters to me and the poor guy who was hosting my site saying that if I did not take it down, I would be facing a law suit.

My Publisher backed me up when I told him all that I published was true and that person had no case.

So I was willing to call his bluff, but even defending a bluff costs money. I did not want to be bothered with the hassle. So I took the sight down.

He lied to everyone he knew who still referred to my sight (and had it copied and would paste it in clubs everywhere..) and told them that he had sued me and got a large settlement and that I was forced to take the sight down. (He is a liar, there was no suit filed, and no settlement and I took the sight down willingly.)

Later, I got a reseller account and now I host and publish my own websites. I still have a page about this guy on my home site, and I imagine he is still out there causing havoc and spreading lies on the Internet but I have not heard a word from him or his lawyer. This current page does not have his personal information or links to his past like the other one had, it is just a story about what happened and advice for anyone who is having a problem with this character.

I think I love the Internet because so far, no government body is telling me what I can or can't put on my sights.

Since then, other had taken up the hobby of posting the truth about The Rev Jim Sutter. At the time I put my sight up, there was nothing about him anywhere, I had to do some investigation.

The following link is to a sight but this one is not mine:

http://www.phonyrev.com/

Someone even dedicated an entire blog to exposing the guy:

http://www.exposingsutter.com/

Hi Sky... it's been a few... how are ya?



I think if anyone does - then everyone should - have the right to be offended, for whatever reason. "He" can be offended at what I say, just like I can be offended at the fact that "He" was offended by my words. The problem comes when a speaker feels that his/her language is protected by the constitution, which it should be, yet the listener(s) claim some form of prejudice or some other illegal element which warrants cause for censorship.

Is being stubborn, closed-minded, ignorant, or prejudice illegal?

Does one have the "right" to be racist, or anti-whatever?

Perhaps the better question to ask is this...

Is anyone of us legally obligated to respect and value the totality of another person, regardless of belief structures? Furthermore, what if the difference in another's beliefs goes directly against what I hold dear in the worst kind of way, according to my belief structure?



Think about what you just said here JB...

What part of the statement don't you understand?

I'll put it this way, I don't think any speech should be restricted (by law or government) for the reason that it might "offend" someone.

An example would be the society depicted in the movie "Demolition man" where people were fined for each curse word they uttered.

But a television network has a right to restrict whatever speech they want, because the network is owned by a corporation and they make the rules.

A free dating website has the right to restrict whatever speech they want, because they own the website. Their website, their rules.

Hi Creative. Yes, it’s been a while. I’m doing well. Hope you are too.

A couple of KKK members are having a conversation. In that conversation, they both use the N word. Neither of them is offended. But take the same two guys and the same conversation and put it into the middle of an NAACP meeting and what happens?

We have two different contexts. One in which offense was taken and one in which it was not. So what’s the difference? The only difference is in the opinions of the people hearing the word. (That’s what I believe Jeannie is talking about.)

The KKK member did not take offense – no problem.

The NAACP member took offense – big problem.

So really, the root of the problem is not with the speaker uttering specific words. There is no problem before the listener reacts. The actual problem is an unwanted emotional state of the listener.
In other words, the origin of the problem actually is the listener, not the speaker!

And what’s the solution?

There are only three possibilities:
1) Make it so the speaker doesn’t say the proscribed words
2) Make it so the listener doesn’t hear the proscribed words
3) Make it so the listener doesn’t take offense

It seems obvious to me that option #3 is the best solution. It directly adresses the real problem – the listener's emotional state.

That solution results in better communication all around. No one being restricted from saying what they want to say. No one being forced to hear something they don’t want to hear. No one being offended at anything that is said. And best of all, no third-party intervention needed.

Win-win.

JB wrote...



I understood all of it. I understand that what you wrote makes no sense whatsoever... it goes against the only reason for euphemisms, which happen to be a restriction to freedom of speech adopted for the very reason you claimed "cannot" be done. These are restrictions which can and are being done. I understand that your first set of words did not match your later response. You first wrote this...



But you meant[later wrote] this...



I am often left wondering whether or not you even know what you think most of the time, because you later wrote this...



"Cannot"... "should"[not restrict]... "has the right to restrict whatever"...

If you would make your mind up, then perhaps the conversation could move forward, but until then, it is only a matter of your sitting atop the fence not actually making a claim or having a stance, either way.

Didn't you earlier make the claim that is was I who sounded like a politician???

Good to hear that you are well Sky...





This is "hitting the nail directly upon the head". Bravo!!!



If it were only that easy to "teach" people to not get offended. People get offended when they feel like another is not placing value upon their totality as a human. People want to be called things which, to them, are not derogatory in nature.

It[freedom of speech] is a paradox in a free democratic society which attempts to place equal value upon all people, regardless of differences. Censorship creates more problems than it's worth in the long run. It is like davidben said earlier, if they[perpetrators] are suppressed, and therefore do "it" in private, then it just becomes an "unknown". Is that better than it being "known"[public]?

Discernment...

Oh I think you know what I am talking about Creative. I am not confused, ...you are.

In regards to law and a government that 'claims' to allow "freedom of speech" it means that if you own a newspaper (or website) under the idea that we have freedom of speech, you should be able to print the truth about the news, no matter who it might hurt or offend.

That is freedom of speech.

BUT this 'freedom of speech' idea does not mean you have a right to post something on my website that I don't like or that I decide is offensive or dangerous (or for what ever reason) just because you think you should have "freedom of speech."

This is because I control what goes on my website and/or in my newspaper. The owner controls censorship.

Censors normally comes from the owners of the media, not from the government...officially. (But it is sometimes hard to distinguish where it is coming from.)

So that's the difference Creative. If you want to try to exercise your 'freedom of speech' then you should go create your own website or start your own newspaper.

It is when the government begins to get involved directly with censorship of privately owned newspapers and websites, then freedom of speech is gone.

The problem we are faced with is that the 'government itself' is a fallacy because the United States of America is a corporation and it has owners. Those owners also manipulate and own a lot of the major media, so it is difficult to tell where the censorship is really coming from as far as major media is concerned.

But do we really have 'freedom of speech?'

A privately owned newspaper will discover that freedom of speech is an illusion when it attempts to print something that the 'powers that be' (the owners of the corporation of the U.S.) do not want something printed. They will be threatened. By whom, is really unclear. The threats are not official government threats or rules and regulations, but government is powerless to prevent these threats. The entities making these threats seem to be above the government.

This is not a conspiracy theory. This is what is going on.

So while we are supposed to have 'freedom of speech' we don't really, where the serious truth about things is involved that 'they don't want the public to know about.

Case in point, a small farm bureau newspaper in Falcon Colorado continued to print articles about cattle mutilations happening to the local ranchers even after having been asked to stop. He was then threatened with violence and serious death threats upon his business and his family.

When my sister who mowed grass for a sod farm kept finding crop circles, she asked her boss about them and he quickly told her not to mention them to anyone. She did not know why he was so nervous about that and thought maybe there was some disease on the sod or something that he did not want anyone to know about.

This is my personal knowledge of strange things like censorship of information. I am sure there are thousands more.

"A privately owned newspaper will discover that freedom of speech is an illusion when it attempts to print something that the 'powers that be' (the owners of the corporation of the U.S.) do not want something printed. They will be threatened. By whom, is really unclear. The threats are not official government threats or rules and regulations, but government is powerless to prevent these threats. The entities making these threats seem to be above the government."

****************************

I would like to add to the statement above that the reason the "powers that be" (the ones who own the corporation of the United States of America) think they can also censor your "privately owned" newspaper is because they actually own you and your newspaper.... you just don't realize it.

They own you and your company. They own everything. They came by this ownership illegally, but they are in power.

If they want to censor you and your newspaper, they can do it, and the government will not protect you.... because they own the corporation that employs the government.

If you get into doing research about the true history of this country, and the FED and the bankruptcy of the United States, you will learn that this is all true.

As I said earlier... with freedom of speech comes the need for discernment.



I think medicine is a good thing at times.

There is no freedom of speech. That idea is an illusion.

I would be willing to go way out on a limb... ... and propose that there are many, many people in this world who have first hand experience with the human rights movements...

In actuality...

I happen to have met a few in my life.

Recognize what it is (and if you do not like it), then use it (like it is) to change it to what you want it to be.

Watch out though JB... the secret police may be coming to get you for exposing the secret...

There of course are some countries that are clearly oppressive and freedom of speech obviously does not exist and everyone knows this. But in this country, the people are convinced to send their sons to die in wars in third world countries under the guise that they are fighting to secure human rights and freedom and fight terrorism.

If the truth were known, that the amount of freedom (of speech) we actually do have is only the amount we are allowed to have, I don't think people would be sending their sons off to die so easily. It is a trade off. They allow a certain amount of dissent and freedom of speech to the point that it is not too damaging which is a very small amount actually.

Our rights and our freedoms are really just privileges that we have in exchange for what they get from us. The illusion that we are free and that we have freedom of speech is extremely necessary for the continuation of government. As long as we are a threat to government, they will want to keep us happy and content. They want us to be happy and dependent on the system to the extent that we have little choice but to cooperate.

The changes are happening so gradually people don't notice it. We are becoming totally dependent on the system and in being so, we have little choice but to cooperate with it, even when it begins to exert total control on our lives.

They have control of the food industry, the trucking industry, the drug industry, the power industry. If the power goes down, you can't even buy a loaf of bread. If the trucking industry is shut down, in three days there will be no food on your grocer's shelves.

Most of all, they have control of the money. (Currency or federal reserve notes... not really money.)

There is no going back. We are beyond the point of no return. When the one world government is finally totally installed you will have to comply. You will have to fit in and cooperate or be taken away and never seen again.

Sounds bleak I know. And hopefully it will not be too violent. There will be revolutionaries. There will always be revolutionaries. They will be called 'terrorists' and dealt with as such. Everything is in place for no-knock warrants, arrests with no trial or lawyers, wire tapping, cameras everywhere watching everything.

So talk about freedom of speech if you want. Spread the illusion. Make your noise. They are just laughing at you.

There are some people who live in the United States but cannot perceive the opportunities that are available to them because of certain personality traits.



This is completely off topic, although with our freedom of speech you are able to express it none-the-less.



This section of your response is at the heart of my focus. There are limitations to all freedoms. This must necessarily be the case or else freedom would become atrophy. Pure personal freedom would have no legal consequences. In order for everyone to be free in their pursuit of happiness, then public protection from dangerous individuals is a necessity. That invokes the need for laws.



People do not send their sons off to die in this country JB. Some people have a sense of patriotism and are proud to be an American, despite the issues which all civilized societies must face, and therefore they volunteer to do what is in the country's best interest.



I find it very paranoid to the point of being almost laughable that the framework you construct is heavily laden with an oppressive tone.



It is called a government, and it is one in which you have a say, should you choose.



It is an interdependent system JB. There is no "they". "They" exist onl;y in your perception of reality, in other words, "they"(whom you claim are in control of everything) exist only in your mind.



Oh, I am sure that "they" are... laughing at me.

Hey, do you feel like talking about freedom of speech?

Your opening post was:



Are you assuming that we do?



Some 'societies' are more free than others. The illusion of freedom is all we currently have.

The difference between freedom and the illusion of freedom is that freedom cannot be taken away from us so easily.

The illusion of freedom can. Easily.

The laws are in place to take our illusion away at any time. New laws restricting our right to bare arms... are in the process. Once we are disarmed, we are lost. Freedom is lost.

Whether or not 'they' choose to maintain the illusion of freedom is their choice. We will have little power over that. We may well be at their mercy.

"There is a 'they' and they are out to get us." (Henry Kissinger quote.)



Off topic.



Not off topic. We are convinced we fight for FREEDOM. Freedom of speech included. If there is no freedom, there would be nothing to fight for except our own survival.... which would not include invading a third world country and bombing the hell out of it.




Here you simply state the extremely obvious. So what is your point exactly?



I think most people are misinformed about what is in the country's best interest. We have so many troops in third world countries, they are taking men out of the national guard to go to Iraq. The national guard is suppose to guard our shores. If we ever were invaded on a massive scale, it would take too long to get our troops back here to protect their own country.



I am happy to be in America but I am not so blind that I do not see what is going on and who is in charge. I took off those rose colored glasses a few years ago. Oppressive? You have not seen anything yet.



Yes it is called that. They called it a government in Hitler's Germany too. Yes, I have a say... so far. I am saying it now. I am telling the truth to anyone who will listen.



Well philosophically speaking, everything exists in "The mind." But there is a 'they' and they do have an agenda whether you see it or not.

The agenda is a One World Government, and a One World Religion. The objective is just business as usual plain and simple. Own the earth. Install a king. (Or Dictator)

"Joy to the world, the lord has come
Let earth receive her king."

That was the instrumental song that was playing when Obama won the election. The camera zoomed in on his face at the part where the words would have been "Let earth receive her King!"

Adoring fans looked up to the lighted stage as if they were experiencing the rapture. It was a very nice subliminal production.

People all over the entire world were rejoicing the new President as if he were the king of the world.

Pictures of Obama are everywhere. Reminds me of some country where a dictator has his picture and statue everywhere.

Quite disturbing actually.

I truly hope its all in my mind. I truly hope I am delusional. Truly I do.