Free Speech

True freedom of speech is dangerous. However, to have speech sensorship is equaly dangerous. I believe that policing the topic is proper. In other words "Adults Only", etc. A person has the right to enter and exit a discussion, this too would be proper.

"A fool says I know and a wise man says I wonder."

I really dont think that freedom of speech can be dangerous
seriously
think about it !
speech is just a way of communicating, now you can say nice things and you can say bad things, BUT as long as you don't really do the bad things you say you'll do it's OK
because some people have trouble seeing the difference between a joke and something serious, and some people have trouble KNOWING the difference
and if i really wanna scare you or piss you off i can do that without breaking the rules, if i'm smart enough
but not giving people the right to speak themselves out is not gonna help, it will just annoy some people and make all the others go AROUND the law...
so how can free speech be dangerous ?

"The more you suffer, the more it shows you really care .... right ?"

Free speech can be dangerous, for example if people start yelling a building is on fire and panic ensues, or if (as was done in the early XXth I think) a radio broadcasts martians attacking which led to a few suicides in the US.
But honestly, I don't see any danger of freedom of speech on this forum.
The biggest danger is that whoever practicing that freedom turns out to be a major annoyance.

"Durch Nacht und Blut das Licht"

in the early XXth I think, boy ya really can make someone feel olde! In truth though I worry about youth forgetting the lessons we had to learn the hard way.
Like on the canadian mary jane page I mentioned college students, if I had said 'Kent State Four' would you have known what I was saying?

"Terrorist or tyrant, few may come to the Truth that both are poor choice."

all free speech has to be taken into account, but think of this: if all free speech matters then do all actions matter? if we as humans want the true definition of free speech, are we limiting this thought to word of mouth or printed media? does this revelation include actions such as those of a rapist, environmentalist, bible thumper or supreme court justice? if we limit one side of the argument must we limit them all? who is there to decied which side is to be followed? it could not possibly be the majority because the majority would be the only one with a voice and therefore baracading the very thing which we are discussing: free speech and the want to be heard.

"personal quotes are awful. they're never personal. someone always repeats some moronic life philosophy that someone else came up with first, or they'll quote a writer or star. I've never seen anyone quote their mother. even so, a personal q"

I am not sure I am understanding your point?

quote:

---

the very thing which we are discussing: free speech and the want to be heard.

---

"Terrorist or tyrant, few may come to the Truth that both are poor choice."

Freedom of SPEECH, not freedom of action. Of course there is a limit to speaking. Speaking your mind has many different ways, but acting out your views is exactly where it should stop. After that point, there are laws that take care of that.

"I'd like to say something profound....."SOMETHING PROFOUND""

Medicinal Marijuana: Freedom of SPEECH, not freedom of action.
http://www.captaincynic.com/thread.php3/frmid=16-u-thrdid=16166-u-page=0
#19478
Looking at OkCities post about the pg woman and the doctor.
Does the His Right of Free Speech as well as his right as a doctorto prescribe what is best for the patient being violated?
Look at my statements will there not be those who would want to ban such? Are their not those who would say Oh, he is pro POT so therefore anything he says must be the results of some drug induced high?
I know many profeessionals who do or have done marijuana but to speak out would risk their professional standing?
========= ==========
A little off topic but

quote:

---

The doctor warned her however not to smoke any of it 60 days before she was to give birth as it would be found on a blood test and they would take her baby away. Something is wrong with this picture.

---

"Terrorist or tyrant, few may come to the Truth that both are poor choice."
[  Edited by cturtle at   ]

Hey there all. i'm from australia and am currently doing a university assignment on whether free speech should be regarded as an absolute and fundamental right. firstly i'd like to thank all of you for your thoughst and opinions, you have made my task a lot easier. each of you very persuasive and thoughtful.

It is my opinion that free speech is an extremely important right and its significance should not be underestimated. however, as important as it is, it is equally dangerous.

reading all these threads i can tell that most people are intelligent and sensible people who are strong in their beliefs and not easilly controlled. in reality however we must acknowledge there are people not as strong and intelligent and logical as all of the people in this forum. i point now to suicide bombers. how often is it that after the latest suicide terrorist bombing in whichever country there are news reports of the families and friends of the suicide bombers who can remember the bombers as being kind or quiet or likable? the truth is that these bombers are generally weak people who are easilly influenced by others and that is why they do what they do. tehy say they do it in the name of God, but in reality they are doing it because they are told to do it by others stronger and more persuasive than they are.

these weak men who kill innocent people are not born with the desire to kill. they are lead to a path of death by people stronger than they are who have persuaded their weak minds that in killing themselves and others they will reach paradise.

if someone came to me and said blow yourself up because it is good and you will reach pradise I would respond then why haven't you done it yet? however, i know there are people who believe and trust in what is said and they obey and adhere to those who push them into doing things.

i guess the point i am trying to make is that while it is easy for us to acknowledge the importance and benefits of free speech because we are not easilly persuaded by the rantings of paedophiles, rapists and terrorists othesr are easilly persuaded and that is the inherent danger of free speech. free speech must be curtailed to protect those weak of mind who can be easilly influenced. it must also be curtailed to protect other people from the harm that can be perpetrated by those weak of mind who have already been influenced by more powerful people.

therefore i suggest that free speech is not absolute but must be balanced. there must be some controls on it to protect the harm done to and perpetrated by those weak of mind who are easilly influenced.

once again i thank you for all your help and input.

"Go hard"

Freedom of speech is a good way to fight the impressing conformity placed on us by society. We should all just say what we want to say. Peoples feelings should come second.

"I love to see people struggling for their purpose in life..."

Well - I think we can show repect - I don't think flamming and stuff like that is right.

Sharing different scientific theories, alternative lifestyles, and different religious beliefs is a good thing and should be incouraged. However, this freedom itself can be curtailed by others acting irrisponsibly.

When I was in Boot camp, one of our instructors sumed it like this. We are all free to do as we like until our freedom steps on the toes of other people's freedom, then their must be laws in place. I

t's never perfect, but hopefully always being perfected.

I think we can be free to share ideas but not free to be disrespectful of others.

"A fool says I know and a wise man says I wonder."