I don't see why you would think that your rights end where my rights begin.

I don't think this thread deteriorated it just died.

Creative said:



What is considered "offensive" depends on the culture, and the people.

(I used to enjoy celebrity roasts on t.v. back when they were all in good fun but today that get downright disrespectful and mean and vulgar.) That does not mean I think they should be restricted. I just think they are in poor taste.

We don't HAVE to love one another, or compromise our integrity in order to be polite to each other, but honesty is what I hold in high regard.

Some people, (maybe all people) tend to attempt to project a certain image of themselves that they want others to see, but don't pull it off well. They are like an actor on the stage who is just not convincing in the portrayal of the character they are playing.

I think we all do this to some extent. This is why the practice of self honesty comes first and then the practice of honesty to others is the challenge we face every day.

Be true to yourself first and be yourself at all times, and then strive (make it a goal) to speak the truth. (Its not as easy as it sounds.)

A lot of people will swear they are being truthful or honest when they have not even begun to be honest with themselves and they are obsessed and preoccupied with what others think of them because they true lack confidence about who they are and what they believe.

If a person wants freedom of speech, first they should learn to speak the truth to themselves and then others. There should be no restrictions on speaking truth. None at all. It does not matter who it offends.

Is it OK to yell MOVIE in a crowded FIREhouse?

Two thought lines here...

What does truth have to do with freedom of speech?

And completely separate...

How does one know this thing that you call truth? Is it a matter of certainty, and if so, what then is the foundation of such a thing? What if that which one deems truth is not? What if then, this false assumption offends another? Should one be so blatantly inconsiderate to not consider the fact that another may, in fact, possess in their knowledge base something that(when considered)would change what one previously considered to be true?

Freedom of speech is the first and foremost building block of a democracy.

Once a famous person said:

I gave you a democracy.
"You can only have democracy, if the people are educated and has a certain level of intelligence. Where the level of intelligence and educations has been decayed, those people aren't asking for a democratically elected president, but they are in need of a dictator."

It's not word by word, but i think it was Benjamin Franklin who said this to someone after signing the Declaration of Independence.

Think about it. It goes hand in hand with the freedom of speech.

The first sign of loosing democracy is the decay of freedom of speech and when you allow that to happen, it has to do with the intelligence level and education of the population , who allows it to happen. They will be needing a dictator...not only needing but almost asking for it.
Unfortunately , I see many signs lately in the decay of freedom of speech everywhere.

Atlantis wrote...



Freedom of speech, in order to be measured, must have a yardstick by which one can do such a thing. These signs of which you speak, what are they and can it be displayed in comparison to what once was, but now is not or is less of?

Well it actually has to do with laws or policies (man made) that would, in some way, legal or otherwise, restrict a person from printing or speaking the truth.

For example, if the president or dictator was a murderer or child molester but there was a law or policy that prohibited anyone from dispatching this information publicly, that would be wrong. Or if anyone who did dispatch this true information were arrested or killed, that would be wrong, and it would be preventing freedom of speech.

The idea of a country having a policy of "freedom of speech," is to prevent the suppression of the truth about the government or its leaders. If this freedom is suppressed or prohibited in any way, legal or illegal, then we are no longer living in a free country.



First, freedom of speech is not about whether anyone is offended by information. Freedom of speech is all about preventing the suppression of the truth.

There is no way to be sure if any information is true or not or if it is simply an opinion, and that is why there must be freedom of all speech and we must be free to put out any information.

Otherwise there would have to be some legal board of inspectors whose job it is to decide if the information is true or not and that would naturally lead to censorship of any disagreeable truths as well as untruths. It would also probably want to suppress opinions and faith based declarations about God.

To forbid a person from speaking or writing about any subject could be suppression of the truth. That is why all information should be allowed.

And that is why if you spread lies about someone, and that person objects, it is his right to sue you.

So the freedom of speech is the freedom to say what you believe is true and it also allows for the spreading of opinions and untruths.

That is just the price we have to pay for freedom to speak the truth and to voice our opinions whether or not they offend someone.

Fear of offending someone is a poor excuse for governing or suppressing free speech because any suppressing of free speech can also suppress free expression, opinions and the truth.



jb

I asked...



JB wrote...



If it can be proven... it can be said or written.



Whether or not it would be wrong to do these things matters not, for these examples exist only in your imagination. They do not represent actuality. It is not a matter of what if, it is a matter of what is. Those laws do not exist.



It is?



You can say whatever you choose in the privacy of your home, without legal consequence. However, if - when in public - your verbal expressions infringe upon another's inalienable human rights, then that is what constitutes grounds for censorship.

I asked...



Jb wrote...



How do you know this?



Rubbish! Everyone holds fast to what they think is true, and all other information is weighed against this foundation. I know that I have shoes on right now. I know what my name is. I know...



There is... it is called a court of law.



It does... in the public arena.



It could...



Rubbish!



How does this statement follow from the last?



It could also suppress one who would deliberately spread untruthes, at the expense of another, for personal gain. It would also inhibit one from inciting panic in a crowd. It would also preserve that which we know to be true to be held as such, preventing say, teachers, from just teaching whatever it is that they choose to believe, regardless of it's correctness.

Discernment.

Creative,

If you spread untruths about someone they can sue you in court. This is called a civil action. But it is NOT against the law to lie unless you are under oath.

It is not against the law to spread untruths because nobody knows if a thing is true or not. Only when it is challenged in court as a civil action can the person be compensated with money or a retraction or whatever.

The reason for the "freedom of speech" in this country is basically giving people the freedom of the press and the freedom to speak out against the current government. That is what keeps this a free country. That is what it is for! If you don't know that by now, then you should go to a country that does not allow anyone to speak against the current government and where political prisoners are put in jail just for expressing their opposition to the current government.

That is the whole idea of freedom of speech.

Anything like spreading untruths in this country must be handled in civil court. People don't get put in jail for telling lies unless they are under oath and bare false witness against someone in court and get caught.

All information should be allowed always if you want to keep this a free country. All speech should be allowed in order to allow the truth to be spoken unrestricted.

Period.

If you are suggesting that there should be any law suppressing free speech of any kind then you would be a person who is willing to give away your own freedom of speech. That is very dangerous thinking.

As for public school teachers, they are basically under the control of the institution they work for. If they go against the rules the worst that should happen to them is they would loose their jobs.

If anyone is ever put in jail for what they say or write or publish, then we have lost our freedom of speech.

Creative wrote:



Are you suggesting that only things that can be "proven" should be permitted to be uttered or written? If so, I am astonished.

That would destroy all religions that claim there is a God.

That would prohibit people expressing their beliefs.

That would be a very oppressive society.

QUOTE Jeanniebean:
That is why all information should be allowed.

QUOTE: Creative:
Rubbish!

QUOTE:Jeanniebean:
And that is why if you spread lies about someone, and that person objects, it is his right to sue you.

Question Creative:
How does this statement follow from the last?

ANSWER:

I find it hard to believe that you don't know the difference between a civil matter and a law.

The only time a person can be jailed for telling a lie is if they lied under oath and gave false witness under oath.

If you lie about anything else and someone does not like it, they have to file a civil action.

Even if you win the civil action, it is not a crime to lie unless you did so under oath. At the most you will have to pay compensation or print a retraction or whatever.

Jb...

Reread my responses in context...

Creative, I know how to read. If you have any point to make then make it.

Why don't you tell me what you mean by freedom of speech and what you think it is.

Why don't you tell me what kind of laws you would like to see passed that prohibit any freedom of speech.

One does not ask another to reread something unless one believes the other can read... does one?



I made several different ones. For one to grasp the difference between what they believe another meant with words, and what the meaning actually was, they must first recognize the problem.



I have been.



Why don't you tell me what makes you believe that I do?

Creative,

I was a strait A student in English and I don't understand a thing you are trying to communicate.

The reason I believe that you lean towards laws that prohibit free speech is because I said that "all information should be allowed" and you said "rubbish."

I can read and comprehend English and I understand sentence structure. I don't know what kind of language you speak but I don't get any of what you are trying to communicate.

If you can't speak in simple concise honest statements, I can't understand you. You just play games.

If you would make simple, plain and honest statements and be clear about your point instead of playing games with language I would not have to guess what you are getting at. But you don't. The flavor of your dialogue is ambiguous as you seem to be trying to be hide your true agenda. It puts me on guard because it does not seem honest or clear. It is fuzzy and deceptive. As if you are hiding behind a curtain and disguising your voice. That is the feeling I get .. always... when I try to talk to you. I don't know why I keep trying.

Perhaps I will give up.

The same words may hold quite a different meaning to different people.



I am, and have repeatedly expressed to you JB the fact that those laws are not only in place now, but have been since the inception of the Bill of Rights. I do not lean towards anything but the fact that they already exist, and for good reason... necessarily so!!!



Are you implying that the words which I write are not done so in a grammatically correct fashion?



No! YOU play games...

There are certain subject matters which cannot be accurately expressed in such a simple fashion, for there also has to be a foundational understanding regarding other elements which have a direct bearing on the matter at hand.

I just saw this thread. I haven't read the entire thread so I'm still tryng to get the jist of the topic. are you asking about freedom of speech in general or for a specific thing?

IMO....freedom of speech is determined by who is in charge. the government decides for the country as say...this site decides what can be said or can't. another example....in your own house. some things aren't acceptable to say for your household.

sorry if i'm rambling...