Free Speech should be limited:

It's not that it's impractical, but US citizens still have a few rights to privacy that we haven't relinquished.

So far in the US personal sexual processes are still up to the individual. Of course if Bushy and cohorts have their way that will change also, but then look what you did to Oscar Wild.

 

Yeah, that was a while ago, dude. It's not illegal anywhere here, whereas I gather it still is in a few states.

 

Well, you don't often hear of people being charged with smoking marajuana here, and you'd pretty much have to be doing it in front of a cop, but it's still illegal. Same with underage sex, someone has to report it as a crime, but it's still illegal.

 

If free speech is limited could we buy shares in it ?

 

Actually that means if you are not p[repared to have a war with those who oppress you then you dont deserve anything but an oppressor - you agree with that? yet elsewhere the both of you, gradener and self control, decry the use of violent protest and a call to revolution against the fascist dictatorships of the western world. Namely Europe and the USA.
Seems to be farcical of you that you dont understand what you quote

 

There are many cases where it is (in my opinion) where it is justifiable to limit freedom of expression.


Case in Point:

Harper v. Canada (2000)

Stephen Harper, as head of the National Citizen Coalition, sued the Canadian Government to repeal an election law limiting the amount that third-parties can spend on federal election advertising.

While this is an obvious violation of his Charter Right, I agreed with their decision not to repeal the law (in order to protect the democratic process).

 

lol@the op

This thread is funny and pointless.

 

Wars are rarely waged to protect the rights of the individual.

 

The protection of free speech is neither funny no pointless.

 

its a thread on a dumb hippy site with an idiot for an op. This isn't going anywhere believe me.

 

I'm not aware that I had decried it, but to be honest, most of the things people want to have violent protests against seems to be things like OHNOES big corporations, despite consumer advocacy (i.e. not buying stuff from them) making a lot more logical sense. I find that a lot of people prefer talking about violent revolution because they know they won't actually be expected to go through with it. And yes, there are some situations in which violence solves matters. But usually, there will be other, more effective avenues to explore.

But no, the quote only really means that you shouldn't give up your liberty in exchange for security. If it originally referred to war, I was not aware of that, but it applies (a lot more in my view) to situations where people are simply scared into going along with those who take away their freedom. In other words, all they've had to do was to say "no", but because they were scared, they said "yes", and lost some of their freedom. Certainly recently, people's freedom in the West is being eroded not through violence, but through the nurturing of a climate of fear, and unfortunately, if we're not all strong enough to overcome that fear, we all suffer for it.

Oh, one other thing: don't call the US and Europe "fascist dictatorships". It undermines the language and means that we will end up without the vocabulary to express the real meaning of those words.

 

Well, it was meant to be funny. I just wanted to see how many people would strongly agree/disagree with the opening post. I was surprised at how many did agree, and mildly amused by some of the things people said in disagreement. So, a little ray of sunshine, then.


But no, I do absolutely intend to start wrecking up free speech. I HAVE POWER INNIT

 

Right on!

Peace and love

 

Well in Canada Freedom of Speech is heavily limited, I just want them to write it on the charter, I just want them to rewrite, Limited Freedom of Speech.

The jokes up.

 

"free speech should be limited" name me a country where it isnt limited

 

The Moon and Antartica.

 

man to be sayin this shin you are either a loony or you are some really flat dude that cannot wobble their ass out of the west and into some place where free speech dont exist at all - we is limited in the best but not as limited as other placebos

here is a nice song for all you fellas that like the thought of sittin your big buns on free speech - hahaha
http://youtube.com/watch?v=7_BrHY9czhk

still not free ennoff tho innit?
go on click my sig again you know you love it ! I know you wanna riot for democracy and free speech
click it click it click mah sig

 

Why not enlist Ronald so that you can kill and wreak havoc without breaking laws? But you seem to only be interested in enlisting others to violence.

 

I would be interested to see how the man behind the persona of Ronald actually reacted to real life violence, situations where his life was threatened and he was forced to do real and permanent harm to others to save himself. I think some of the most violent talkers are actually the most timid people in real life, who live in a fantasy macho world.

I wish I could drop you off into a war zone for a few minutes Ronald, blast your soul to the core with cold harsh reality, and then get you out before you were killed. I think it would be a clarifying moment in your life. You would learn the truth about your relationship with violence for once, whatever that relationship might be.

 

people need to stop being so fucking soft about words. if you think about most of the mean thins peopel say are in some way a reflection of themselves. AND as soon as we let the government begin to tell us what constitutes free speech,. what will they do next? suspend habeus corpus( oh wait.)