I may be going out on a limb here but i feel in light of recent events, the exact notion of 'Freedom Of Speech' and what exactly it entails might
need some clarification in the heads of some ATS members.
Hopefully with the help of some open mindness and rational thought, we can use our collective intelligence to reach some common ground here....
To Begin i think its appropiate to introduce a closely related concept of speech;
Hate Speech - is, outside the law, communication that vilifies a person or a group on the basis of color, disability, ethnicity, gender, nationality,
race, religion, sexual orientation, or other characteristic.
In law, hate speech is any speech, gesture or conduct, writing, or display which is forbidden because it may incite violence or prejudicial action
against or by a protected individual or group, or because it disparages or intimidates a protected individual or group.
Source wikipedia en.wikipedia.org...
Every liberal democracy has laws or codes against hate speech—except the UNITED STATES. For constitutionalists, regulation of hate speech violates
the First Amendment and damages a free society. Against this absolutist view, Jeremy Waldron argues powerfully that hate speech should be regulated as
part of our commitment to human dignity and to inclusion and respect for members of vulnerable minorities.
Source 'Harvard Univeristy Press' - www.hup.harvard.edu...
The above definitions and notions can ve found in abundance across many different literatures and mediums in one form or the other...some even devling
deeper into the actual concept ...
But lets keep it simple for the sake of......simplicity?
I believe when the idea of freedom of speech was first introduced ( as a human right), im sure it was rather obvious that the user should exercise
their discretion when attempting to express their feelings or emotions within their opinions...so that they could still get their point across in a
respectful manner.....whether it be with a stern attitude....intense in nature regardless as long as it is within ideological and humane limits and
does not come across as blatantly disrespectful and vulgar.
Such is the way a human being should carry themselves no? im sure whatever religion you are from or whatever form of belief you follow....respect to
a fellow human being is simply manners and basic etquette, in most cases its usually natural, because we have a high capacity for intelligence which
promotes such behaviour and what seperates man from animal.
As an individual exercising their right to an opinion (freedom of speech) one should consider the indirect and direct effects of what they say, how it
would affect others on the Grand scheme of things....will someone die as a result? will a building be set on fire as a result of the words or opinions
you have displayed?.....given the current climate its very easy for words to manifest into violent destruction perhaps thats a factor that should make
itself part of the thought process before a person executes their opinions in whatever medium they choose wether it be video, cartoon or verbally
To conclude some from of diligence is required on part of those who wish to exerisce free speech in addressing what could be deemed as severley
disrespectful by the other party or opposition. Research and understanding is always the key.
I have just exercised my right to freedom of speech in a respectul approach as an example
Its not logical to blame a reigion for violence, its a debate that can go on forever but blame the person carrying out the actions....not every human
being is perfect but you can still do more good by finding more intelligent ways to express your opinions that does not lead to the loss of life.
As for those whose intention is to TROLL, to incite such violence , the above also applies to you, as showing a disregard for other peoples beliefs is
disrespectful to say the least when those who have such a belief.....base their entire lives around that belief system and who are we to judge unto