With great power comes great responsibility (morals, followers, blood, America)

[jewscout]

the issue of freedom of speech was brought up in another thread not too long ago and it got me thinking...

We have Freedom of speech as well as of the press. This is one of the cornerstones of American democracy. But with that freedom, that power, do we also have a responsibility to the nature of what speech we put out? The power to say what we want, does that not also bring in the responsiblity to show proper tact and consideration to the content of our message?

thoughts??

[evearael]

I believe very strongly in freedom of speech and the press. However, I also believe very strongly in censorship within the home and boycotting media that is offensive to your morals. Individuals need to take responsibility for the media they choose to consume and the media they allow their children to consume. The media in all its various forms needs to take care not to misrepresent fiction as truth, but other than that... it's supply and demand.

[michel]

I also believe in freedom of speech. The trouble is that it can be used against the Country or nation advocating it; and usually is.

Can you imagine anything more "understanding" than allowing this to happen ?
From http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3752517.stm

Abu Hamza runs Supporters of Sharia, which is a group dedicated to the rule of Islamic law.
In 2002 he addressed a rally in central London called by the radical Islamic group al-Muhajiroun, where members spoke of their support for al-Qaeda.
But he strongly denies American suggestions he recruits al-Qaeda terrorists.

Originally Posted by [COLOR=#ff0000

Abu Hamza [/color]]
"Many people will be happy, jumping up and down [after September 11]. America is a crazy superpower and what was done was done in self-defence"

His most infamous comments include praise for Osama Bin Laden and warnings to the UK Government about the consequences of attacking Iraq.

These have provoked as much condemnation from within Islam as from outside. Many Muslims say he only represents a few hundred people.

In February 2003, he was banned from preaching at the mosque by the Charity Commission but he continued to speak from the street outside.
(I just picked this one at random, because it so incensed me at the time).and you will note the fact that he was far too much of an extremist for most of his own followers. I believe that at one time, he preached in Arabic, so that he could say anything he wanted to with impunity.

[evearael]

Fred Phelps makes my blood boil, but I agree with Voltaire, none the less:

I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.

[michel]

Originally Posted by evearael

Fred Phelps makes my blood boil, but I agree with Voltaire, none the less:

I understand and respect that; it is for that reason that my parents fought in WWII (and my Mum was a pacifist). It was their legacy.

[evearael]

I believe that there are a scant few circumstances that speech should be limited, like the popular example of screaming "Fire!" in a crowded theater. I am not certain Hamza's case warrants restriction. If he is screaming "KILL KILL KILL," perhaps, but if he is just saying how much he hates the government, I don't feel he should be prosecuted on his speech. Though he could potentially be prosecuted for other reasons... like conspiracy to commit terrorism or similar charges.