Quote:
Originally Posted by teetwoohsix
Thanks Ian.
It just boils down to common sense. The same common sense one would use to know that you shouldn't use profanity around children. "Freedom" and "limits" together sounds odd to me. Like "water" and "oil", they don't mix. You either have free speech or you don't. I prefer to think that we do. The same way you can never convince me that a corporation is a person- and I don't care who said that "it's the law". A person is "a person".
Sincerely, Clayton
|
By "limits", I only meant that a person can break the law by simply saying the wrong thing, in the wrong place. Of course you're "free" to say whatever you want, and will sometimes suffer the consequences for doing so.. but again, you are free to commit any crime you want and similarly face the consequences. This measure of "freedom" and the subsequent consequences is no different in any country or walk of life.
What I think differentiates us (the American ideals people think of when "freedom of speech" is mentioned) is the fact that we allow much more (almost anything) to be said, drawing the lines of legal speech much more loosly/openly than a more oppressive regime might. We can march (ideally after securing a license first), we can protest, we can write nasty letters to newspaper editors about our mayor/governor/congressman/president, etc. There was no room for similar politicized speech under Stalin or Mao... and even in modern "1st world" R****a (I'll let you fill in the gaps) several reporters/lawyers have been assasinated apparently for criticism of those in power. Clearly in those instances, freedoms are far more limited than we experience, and the line of what can be said is much more strict.
Separately though, I totally agree in that I am also a big "common sense" guy, and do get tired of a total reliance on written law to guide and/or judge one's actions. Many things said or done totally defy common sense and are wrong, legal or not... but I married a lawyer so there you have it
