Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Freedom of Speech a debate.

page: 3
3
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 16 2014 @ 06:47 PM
link   
Freedom of speech is an action of will and action spurred by the free will of others who choose to take offense to what you say are the consequences of it.

It's not a very complex topic. Essentially you can say what you'd like when you'd like but no matter the society you're in, to say certain things will likely shorten your lifespan. Whether North Korea or the USA
edit on 2014 by BlubberyConspiracy because: (no reason given)




posted on Aug, 16 2014 @ 06:49 PM
link   
a reply to: MessageforAll

First I believe you may be confusing 'right' and 'privledge'. Right implies a freedom that cannot be taken away regardless of circumstances. In application, that is the ideal, as deliniated by the US Constitution, but is very rarely available to anyone in actual practise. It is an ideal.

A privledge, is an 'earned' freedom as in earning ones driver's license.

Now the rights as stated in the US Constitition technically only apply where the US constitution applies. The constitution, charters of other countries may or may not address the ideal of 'freedom of speech' and that ideal applies in those countries regardless of nationality.

As to the internet - I don't think anyone has any true understanding of what laws apply. The laws of the land of the user, the content provider, where the data resides, where it passes through, yadda, yadda, yadda.

I think with the advent of 'Total Information Awareness' (I can't imagine what US tax payers are paying for this 'security measure'), I think it's wise to be aware of the limits of 'free speech'.



posted on Aug, 16 2014 @ 06:50 PM
link   
The fact the anyone took the time to create a test for obscenity is offensive.

They arbitrarily used their subjective morals and values and imposed it on us all.

YOU SHOULD BE OFFENED TOO!



posted on Aug, 16 2014 @ 07:35 PM
link   
a reply to: MessageforAll

Believe me, freedom of speech is geographically located.

It all depends on where you are whether you are allowed such a basic freedom.

In most western countries freedom of speech is cherished. But places look North Korea, not so much.

Some places have more freedom than others, it depends on where you are.

It also depends on who you are with. Can't talk about certain subjects depending on the company you are with. For instance, it may be considered goash to talk about your excessive flatulance in front of your significant other, or along that same vein, your fondness of giving dutch ovens.

Where you are is what matters.



posted on Aug, 16 2014 @ 08:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: ugmold
Man behind the Mask said: Take North Korea for instance........
I can say what I want about Kim here in the US and most parts of the world........
If I did that there in NK, id be looking at death or a work camp.....
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Now if Kim had the long arm that Israel has in Germany in Canada.....He would put you in Jail.

Can you see why this is so wrong? I can.


???? lol whats the logic in this? what does this have to do with Israel?

Israel doesnt throw people on ATS in jail for talking bad about Israel, so that kind of destroy that theory



posted on Aug, 16 2014 @ 09:05 PM
link   
a reply to: Annee
Finland is not a country to have free speech, nor is Europe for that matter. Those that are a part of the EU, have to abide by the EU decisions on different areas, and if it is policy to say limit or forbid speech on some topics, then it filters down to the member nations.

But Finland, does not have as free of a speech laws as some would believe, it censors the Internet. Originally it was to ban child porn, but like all laws of censorship, it has expanded and now includes those of an adult nature, or what they would consider to be pornographic by their standards. And if a person was consider to be politically inconvienet, then their web site ends up on the government blacklist and is thus censored from the viewing of those in Finland, such as Matti Nikki, an activist who dared criticized the EU for their censorship of the internet. Silencing the voice of dissent, is not freedom.



posted on Aug, 16 2014 @ 09:27 PM
link   
Before I close this thread, I'd like to state the OBVIOUS (or what should be OBVIOUS)...

Freedom of speech on this site is absolutely, positively, limited to that which we the staff and owners feel moves our vision forward.

Enough said.
edit on 8-16-2014 by Springer because: (no reason given)






top topics



 
3
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join