Is everyone entitled to their opinion?

by Dogpatch 35 Replies latest jw friends

  • sabastious
    sabastious
    It's got less to do with hampering "free speech" and more to do with having basic common understandings so that decency and respect prevail when emotions threaten to take over. The anonymity of the net means that given half a chance, when people feel exasperated or misunderstood or unappreciated, there is an increased tendency to resort to more personal ways of expressing oneself. We don't need social psychology experiments to show us that, when people think they won't be identified or caught, they are more likely to resort to personalized ways of getting back at people who have upset them.

    A forum is not a government. When I speak about free speech I am solely regarding it's foundations in democratic government. I'm not sure if your statement was about my posts at all, but just to be clear. I don't expect free speech in a place like this. I personally censor swear words here because of the posted guidelines. In fact, I like that this is a controlled environment. There is a time and a place for everything, even totalitarian rule. If you are allowed in a laser tag room you play by their rules, not any made up in your head. You give up freedom temporarily and on purpose to play the game. But, without security provided by a democratic government founded on free speech there is only a laser tag building if the government says their is a laser tag building.

    -Sab

  • caliber
    caliber

    Absolute freedom is the ability or freedom to make a choice and act on it completely detached from the input, control or otherwise influence of external forces such as society, people etc . True freedom however is not absolute freedom for in this we consider others .

    None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but licence. ~~ John milton

  • talesin
    talesin

    Sab,, you obviously weren't paying attention in history class.

    http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/topic/70.htm

    excerpts:

    All wars are expensive, the French and Indian war particularly so. After defeating the French, the British were put to the protracted expense of building frontier defenses. Although the British were anxious to attract English-speaking colonists who would defend America for England, it was obvious some of the settlers were becoming very rich. Surely these people could not object to paying taxes for their own defense. In retrospect, it seems remarkably naive of the British to think it was that easy. Americans did not want to pay taxes because they did not want to pay taxes. They settled on the stance of "No taxation without representation" and like Franklin and the Penn family many really believed in it. That slogan was particularly effective after it became apparent that Parliament wasn't about to give remote colonists reciprocal power in Parliament to interfere with affairs in the British Isles. With Parliament adamantly refusing to dilute its own power, "No taxation without representation" was a neat rhetorical box which meant, "No taxation."

    .....

    After a century in 1764, however, the Stamp Act was passed, producing modest revenue but imposing a crippling set of headaches by requiring special papers to transact private business. The uproar was enormous and legitimate, focused mostly on the tangle of red tape needlessly imposed. By shifting taxation from trade to paperwork transactions, suspicions were plausible that the Ministry was scheming something obscure. The Stamp Act was hastily repealed, even before Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Penn recognized its unpopularity, and were still to some extent defending it in 1766. Franklin apparently saw the Stamp Act as an opportunity to appoint his friends as stamp agents. Local uproar in Pennsylvania was apparently orchestrated by William Bradford, who in addition to having been Franklin's former competitor in the printing business, was the owner of the London Coffee House at Front and Market.

    .....

    The Townshend Navigation Acts of 1768.In 1766 the Grenville Ministry was replaced by that of Rockingham, then soon by Pitt, who were anxious to disavow the unpopular Stamp Act, but nevertheless needed colonial revenue, and needed a few unpleasant laws to prove that Parliament could not be intimidated by colonial squawking.

    .....

    The underlying political purpose of these taxes was to provide revenue for paying British colonial administrators directly, rather than depend on the Colonial legislatures to pay them. The Legislatures had long played a game of withholding payments, sometimes even the salaries of Judges and Royal Governors, when they disapproved of projects devised in London.

    .....

    The colonists were effectively asked to pay higher prices for everything, in order to increase Britishness and to billet soldiers they could not command. Once that cat was out of the bag, attitudes could never be the same. On the English side of the ocean, the question was framed as colonist unwillingness to contribute to the cost of their own defenses. The two slanted perceptions hardened to the point where arrogance confronted defiance, suggesting combat to both of them.

    .....

    I'm tired,, believe what you wish,, the facts are all available online ...... Next, you'll be saying that the Civil War was all about freeing the slaves.

  • talesin
    talesin

    Saying someone can't tell others to not talk negatively about an offical office is an exercise in free speech. By themselves the words hold no power beyond the sayer. However, if the words are enforced at all then the first amendment is being breached and justice requires serving.

    You must have still been a JW during the 2004 elections. When the President tells his constituents that speaking against the war is tantamount to treason, that is NOT an exercise in free speech (imo).

    When journalists are 'embedded' and TOLD WHAT THEY ARE ALLOWED TO REPORT and also TOLD WHAT MUST BE SUPPRESSED, that is NOT freedom of the press. The war mongers learned a lot from Vietnam --- once the American public learned what was really going on over there, opinions changed. That's the whole purpose of embedded journalism --- it helps the government to control the flow of information. Freedom of speech - I think not.

    take it or leave it ... I'm done with this subject,,, and with the ignorance of 'some' Americans about their own history.

    tal

  • Scully
    Scully

    'consumer', 'stakeholder' or 'someone with significant leverage'

    In a research context, those are the kinds of individuals whose opinions are taken with a grain of salt (and usually require potential conflict of interest disclosures), because their opinions are coloured by their biases.

  • talesin
    talesin

    Saying someone can't tell others to not talk negatively about an offical office is an exercise in free speech. By themselves the words hold no power beyond the sayer. However, if the words are enforced at all then the first amendment is being breached and justice requires serving.

    sab,,, just do a google search on Dixie Chicks boycott, and you will see how freedom of speech was suppressed when they DARED to criticize GWB.

    t

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit