Freedom of Speech

[Rex]

What does Freedom of Speech mean to you, and where should you have that right?

 

[cardero]

In my opinion Freedom Of Speech means that you can say anything to anyone, anywhere without any repercussions or consequences. In another of my opinions we should have this right or freedom where we need it the most- at our jobs.

 

[Scuba Pete]

Most people who fixate on Freedom of Speech have forgotten the Freedom of Thought.

 

[cardero]

NetDoc writes: Most people who fixate on Freedom of Speech have forgotten the Freedom of Thought.

Ah yes, The Freedom Of Thought, now there is a freedom that I exercise daily.

 

[retrorich]

What does Freedom of Speech mean to you, and where should you have that right?

Freedom of speech is like any other freedom or right. You are entitled to it as long as the way you use it does not violate someone else's freedom or right.

 

[No*s]

Most people who fixate on Freedom of Speech have forgotten the Freedom of Thought.

That one's harder to take . I can think whatever I want, and unless I open my mouth, I can't be punished for it.

OTOH, there are some thoughts that can't occur to me unless I have access to the requisite information, and those thoughts are dependent on Freedom of Speech.

 

[michel]

Rex,

Quote[What does Freedom of Speech mean to you, and where should you have that right?]

I seem to find myself replying to a lot of threads with a poor view of mankind; I was happy to join this forum, to be, hopefully with like-minded people. So far, I haven't been disappointed; I have 'taken' to quite a few members with whom I could empathise etc.......

Freedom of speech to me means that anyone can say whatever they like, whenevr they feel like it.
Where should you have that right?- I would immediately say 'where I know that whatever I say will offend no one' in answer.

The trouble with a theoretical ideal, such as 'freedom of speech', is that such Ideas come about as a result of oppression and the forbidding of freedom of speech.
As with all matters in life, once people campaign hard to overturn a social injustice, the momentum created by their efforts often carry the good original idea past a point which is acceptable, and once that happens, people take advantage and abuse the gift.

I don't know if it is the same for you, where you live, but a characteristic of this is obvious with the idal of 'anti-racist' principles.

Of course I fully endorse the Idea that we should not be prejudiced by coulour, sex-orientation, whatever else......., but have you noticed, that , for example, here in the UK, I am forbidden to use cetain words that might offend a black person, the same principle is noot applied to the black person in relation to me.................?:banghead3

 

[No*s]

What does Freedom of Speech mean to you, and where should you have that right?

The ability to share information and opinions unimpeded by the government on any subject I choose. The only limitations I can think of are blatantly attempting to incite violence or things like yelling "fire!" in a theater. Everything else, from speaking, to writing, to copying, to whatever, is fair game and should be unhindered.

 

[Pah]

What does Freedom of Speech mean to you, and where should you have that right?

Freedom of speech is but the expression of the innate right to hold free thought.

It is designated a freedom because, in some cases, it can be contolled by the state. It is not protected speech when the expression would be of imminent danger to others or to the speaker (I am talkng about incitement and "fighting words").

An illustration - a crowd in the park hears the words "Let's get those Catholics" (protected speech). A crowd on the way to a Catholic church, while carrying clubs and torches, hears "Let's get those Catholics" (again. protected speech). The crowd standing before the church doors while carring torches and clubs hears "Let's get those Catholics" and at this point the speech is not longer proteced by the First Amendment. The imminence of the danger is the discriminating factor. The police power of the state may be used at this point. While it may be used "on the march" it would not be a constitutional exercise of power to prohibit the speech but of some other nature. While in the park, the police power must be used to protect the speakers. When the speaker is threatened, the police may remove the speaker if the words can be consider "fighting words" to a hostile crowd.

I have tried to confine the illustration to points dealing with expression - there may well be other "crimes" occurring that warrant the use of police power throughout the scenario.

"Fire" yelled in a movie theater is not protected speech unless, in fact, there is a fire. That utterance is of such magnitude in the circumstances that immediate danger from a false panic is of more concern then the accommodation of free speech.

Burning the American flag is free speech for it is the expression of a political statement. Burning a draft card is not considered political free speech because the card is the property of the state.

 

[Lightkeeper]

In my opinion Freedom Of Speech means that you can say anything to anyone, anywhere without any repercussions or consequences. In another of my opinions we should have this right or freedom where we need it the most- at our jobs.

What comes to mind here is Libel and Slander. We don't have complete freedom to say anything to anyone. Especially, if we say something that causes someone to lose their job or ruins their reputation, we can be sued.

 

[anders]

The only limitations I can think of are blatantly attempting to incite violence or things like yelling "fire!" in a theater.

Agreed. One month in prison for the Swedish pastor (pentecostal) who preached that
[disclaimer: printout from Sweden's No. 2 daily, the
Göteborgs-Posten.]

homosexuality is a cancer on the body of society
aids has developed because of homosexuality
homosexualy is something you choose, and thus can choose not to encompass
homosexuals can't be Christian
many homosexuals are pedophiles or engage in sex with animals
God says that it is a severe sin, when, like in Sodom and Gomorrhah, men kiss one another and women kiss one another in front of TV cameras and openly in our streets
those governing our country are maniacs beacause of their allowing registered partnerships
they will bring the wath of God upon our country, realized as catastrophies, by letting people live like they choose to.


is really a tribute to the very humane laws of Sweden. A hateful maniac like that should be converted to fish fodder ASAP, if only the Society for Protection of Animals would allow it.

And the reference to Sodom and Gomorrhah just proves that the guy hasn't even any knowledge of what the Bible says. Like, for example, I have proved on this site and others, there is no place in the Bible mentioning homosexual activities in those cities (regardless of their being "sinful" or not). How could there be, when according to Gen. all the citizens of Sodom (male and female), young and old, gathered before Lot's house?

 

[No*s]

Agreed. One month in prison for the Swedish pastor (pentecostal) who preached that
[disclaimer: printout from Sweden's No. 2 daily, the
Göteborgs-Posten.]

homosexuality is a cancer on the body of society
aids has developed because of homosexuality
homosexualy is something you choose, and thus can choose not to encompass
homosexuals can't be Christian
many homosexuals are pedophiles or engage in sex with animals
God says that it is a severe sin, when, like in Sodom and Gomorrhah, men kiss one another and women kiss one another in front of TV cameras and openly in our streets
those governing our country are maniacs beacause of their allowing registered partnerships
they will bring the wath of God upon our country, realized as catastrophies, by letting people live like they choose to.


is really a tribute to the very humane laws of Sweden. A hateful maniac like that should be converted to fish fodder ASAP, if only the Society for Protection of Animals would allow it.

That's more regulation that I would grant. I was referring to someone saying "See Pete over there? He needs to be beaten. Go get him." That's what I mean by blatantly. I don't care how hateful an opinion is, I wouldn't support government regulation of it. If, for the converse, the homosexual wants to preach that about the heterosexual, then let him. If some racist preaches hate, then let him. The moment they move to directly and blatantly inciting violence is another matter.

And the reference to Sodom and Gomorrhah just proves that the guy hasn't even any knowledge of what the Bible says. Like, for example, I have proved on this site and others, there is no place in the Bible mentioning homosexual activities in those cities (regardless of their being "sinful" or not). How could there be, when according to Gen. all the citizens of Sodom (male and female), young and old, gathered before Lot's house?

Yes...the biggest problem there was hospitality, and that's a sad thing when people miss that.

 

[lilithu]

In my opinion Freedom Of Speech means that you can say anything to anyone, anywhere without any repercussions or consequences.

I realize that you said that this is your opinion - and therefore not up for debate - but I find it hard to believe that it really is.

For example, if I were to say something ridiculously nasty to you, you might decide not to talk to me anymore, and/or other members might decide that I wasn't worth talking to, and/or I might get negative frubals or a warning. Would these repercussions or consequences be an infringement on my Freedom of Speech?

imo, Freedom of speech means that no one's speech/ideas will be legally priveleged over someone else's. But it does not mean that there will be no consequences for one's speech/actions. With liberty always comes responsibility.

 

[Yerda]

I'm a big fan of freedom of speech, and abhor censorship.

Sometimes though I think people need reminding that they have a right to keep their mouth shut for a change.

 

[Andra130]

"I'm a big fan of freedom of speech, and abhor censorship.

Sometimes though I think people need reminding that they have a right to keep their mouth shut for a change."

I agree, but here is some food for thought...
there are a few companies in Utah that edit R rated and PG-13 movies so that the local Mormon population will watch then (Mormons are strongly urged not to watch R and even PG-13 movies by their prophet). As a result there are several Hollywood producers that are suing over the editing saying that their work is being censored. What are your thoughts on this?
We must note that unless these movies are edited for certian content like language and nudity that the Mormons would not watch them at all.
Also, many have mentioned that they agree with freedom of speech as long as it does not incite violence or is overly offensive to others. In my case I curse quite a bit and have been bereted on more than one occasion. How is this hurtful to any one when these words could really only be viewed as a matter of semantics?? And isn't that person more or less trying to censor me?

 

[Yerda]

there are a few companies in Utah that edit R rated and PG-13 movies so that the local Mormon population will watch then (Mormons are strongly urged not to watch R and even PG-13 movies by their prophet). As a result there are several Hollywood producers that are suing over the editing saying that their work is being censored. What are your thoughts on this?

Prophets setting out movie guidelines? That's news to me.

I'm not sure about these issues, I'm not a mormon and to be cruelly honest don't care. They don't need to watch them, and I'm surprised Hollywood producers have such a degree of artistic integrity.

In my case I curse quite a bit and have been bereted on more than one occasion. How is this hurtful to any one when these words could really only be viewed as a matter of semantics?? And isn't that person more or less trying to censor me?

This I can empathise with. I use certain words a lot and have offended a coulpe of people on this very forum on occasion. I don't understand why people get annoyed at some words but recognise that they do, so I try not to use them (forgiving the odd bout of absent mindedness).

I suppose I allow myself to be censored then, but I can live with a small degree of infringment amongst pleasant people who I would rather not offend.

 

[Andra130]

Well, not specific guidelines, not rules, just suggestions to keep the people "pure of heart and mind". I understand how is not a big deal to most people, but having been raised in this area it is a topic of concern when people want to watch a "good" movie with out the useless nudity and language, I don’t understand how keeping these elements in are "artistic" and how that would make producers have "artistic integrity" by keeping them in. Isn't this reverse censorship? Shouldn't people have the option of what they want to view? I understand they don’t have to watch them at all but how would it be to miss big and arguably important movie such as (for lack of a good example off hand) Titanic because of one boob scene? Doesn't this movie retain its artistic integrity with out it?
As far the cussing goes, I do agree to accept a certain amount of infringement, some times it is just bothersome when it (berating) happens over and over. (I am not referring to the religious forums by the way, I definitely self censor here).:tsk:

 

[Jaymes]

Shouldn't people have the option of what they want to view? I understand they don’t have to watch them at all but how would it be to miss big and arguably important movie such as (for lack of a good example off hand) Titanic because of one boob scene? Doesn't this movie retain its artistic integrity with out it?
As far the cussing goes, I do agree to accept a certain amount of infringement, some times it is just bothersome when it (berating) happens over and over. (I am not referring to the religious forums by the way, I definitely self censor here).:tsk:

How on EARTH was Titanic an important movie? Nobody's forcing them to watch it, and if the director put something in a movie it's there for a reason. Period. Nobody should tamper with it.

If you don't want to hear cursing or see nudity, don't watch it. Simple as that. The directors don't exist to accomodate you.

 

[Yerda]

How on EARTH was Titanic an important movie?

It helped most of the guys in my school class score points with the ladies for one.

I agree that if you don't want to see a film with nudity it would probably be best to watch one without.

Curiously, are mormons aloud to watch documentaries containg nudity, violence, swearing? Documentaries are potentially important forms of communication.

 

[Andra130]

Well!
It seems that I have to reiterate that I said "for lack of a good example". I chose Titanic off hand because of the ONE scene that under certain standards prevented some people from seeing it and becuase it was hailed as an important movie (in its time) if not for story line then for visual effects. Also, I do not believe that directors have to accomodate an individual offended by such things, I simply feel like there should be options and those same producers should not limit those options that are edited and released by others for others. Also, just becuase a scene is there that does not make it essential to the plot or the film. Honestly....And on another note, I dont believe (to my knowledge) that previous PG-13 films had nudity in them, so how was one to know in order to avoid that particular movie?? I know I wasn't expecting to see breasts when I went to watch it...

Truth Seeking: as far as your question on documentaries, most LDS that I know would say that they simply judge by movie rating (ie: R vs G) or see the edited version. I fully agree that documentaries are important but I find it notable that of the many documentaries that I have seen most do not have aggressive amounts of nudity or language, they are usually very professional...(one of my recent favorite: "Super Size Me").