I have come across many threads which discuss different topics. All what they share in common is nothing, but just one word "Freedom". The term itself is used in confusing ways and at the same it doesn't have a finite dimensions to be defined within. Subjective, but not objective and uncontrolled. Dependent upon cultures, yet even within one culture is being controversial and dialectical. This how freedom is, for one to achieve it, the freedom of someone else has to be eliminated.
Is freedom just a radical theory ? if yes, then how it can be modified and altered ?
It even makes me wonder, is it freedom when someone is tied to the thought of others ?, worrying how it will be perceived and judged even if there is no any law that restricts physical freedom.
Is it freedom of speech when it hurts and insults others ?, just someone has no intention to criticize reasonably and coherently, but with the goal of offending them.
I'm really confused with this, I just wan to see how others view the meaning of freedom.
I don't think freedom is a "radical theory," it's something that every human being on earth should be able to enjoy.
You bring up public nudity as a clash between a nudist's freedom and pedestrians' freedom, but this is just sort of the same thing as if someone were standing on a street corner yelling with a bullhorn at people "@#%#$ you! %($& you!" they would probably get ticketed by police or asked to move along for disturbing the peace.
However people are free to go to places like nude beaches and private homes to be nude if they wish without fear of the law because the only reason they can't do so in public is mostly because of children.
Consider something like a TV station, radio station or internet site. People can broadcast or post whatever material they want (with a minor exception for daytime public TV, which tones down for children) because the idea is that if something offends you on it, you should just change the channel -- not go using the government to strip someone's rights to broadcast what they want just because you don't like it.
As for the freedom of speech and insults, it's impossible to prevent speech that insults people and it's impossible to define a line to separate it. There will always be someone that's insulted by something, and if a law were passed which banned the freedom to insult then all comedians would be out of a job, all movies and video games and books would become very dull (as nearly any of them can be claimed by almost anyone to be insulting), and so on.
People should have the right to voice their opinions. For instance the Fred Phelps clan voices their opinion that God is angry at America for being so light-handed with homosexuality and that they believe our soldiers dying in Iraq/Afghanistan is the result of God's wrath.
Is that insulting? OF COURSE! But do they have the right to voice their opinion? Yes, because if they didn't, what prevents someone from taking *my* right to voice *my* opinion? Who decides what's insulting and what's not?
How do you define an "insult" from an opinion?
For instance, what if someone had the opinion that the prophet Mohammed was (enter something incredibly insulting here)? Could they voice that opinion, or would they be oppressed by some anti-free speech law that "protects from insults?" What's the difference between an insult and a genuine opinion/argument?
It's best to protect all speech (unless it directly incites violence, like yelling "FIRE" in a crowded theater or saying "GO BLOW UP THE WHITE HOUSE," which would be illegal) because people have a choice how to react: they
choose to get offended or to just ignore it, or to fight back with a counterargument. So there's no excuse to strip someone's right to express their opinion, ever.
.
