Freedom of Speech is a fundamental right all of US agree on; in theory. We find ourselves fighting with all the reasonable use of the right. We should talk our thoughts but we feel we've the right to decide to what extend their very own may be spoken by others.
The present argument over flying the Confederate flag, the argument over how far Westboro Baptist ought to be permitted to really go past the bounds of common decency are prime examples of when we believe that the right is abused by others to their liberties. But, should or should we bemoan their use of an inalienable right we observe the reality they have it?!
Freedom of speech isn't a theory that supports the notion of stringent parameters. Freedom of speech permits each of us sovereignty over our ideas and how we decide to express them. We have to live by the results of activities and our words related to this particular independence.
With the introduction of the web produce a semblance of unity of voice and people who keep points of view which deviate radically from our own possess the aptitude discover each other, to band together. We can, sometimes, consider that these divergent views are becoming main stream. We can believe they're getting a degree of approval which we find abhorrent. But, that's the attractiveness of the independence.
We can discuss. We can improve our perspective. But so can everyone else. There's a symmetry in this right. Independence can only exist if it's worldwide. And, positive change is driven by independence because we can, as a community, discuss these points of view. As people we cannot, without the capacity to discuss thoughts, grow. We can't grow as a society without hearing the voices which are a part of it all.!
We have to live with the dreads. Was a casualty of his own biases that were fed by the words of another. A dark side to our rights to discuss. The call to prohibit the ability of citizens to show symbols of the hate is counterproductive; in my opinion. We can't talk about that which we can not see. We can not try to bridge differences which are concealed from our view. We can't find methods to treat open sores with the band aid of limitations concealing them from us.
We try to prohibit the things we find offensive we can't understand that prohibition anything WOn't make the reasons for the violation vanish. It is a whitewash of a dilapidated fence. It's an effort to divest ourselves of our duty to try to set forth our thoughts on the causes and treatments and to speak out against the perspectives we find offensive. This skill to talk and behave isn't as easy as two opposed viewpoints. We find that many differ on the causes and treatments when something such as the terror in Charleston is brought to our attention. We locate more gaping wounds. We locate those who place blame, people who make explanations and those whose empathy is frustrated by means of an inability to comprehend such a thing could occur. But, minus the power to freely talk we'd understand none of these matters. We'd be trapped within our own thoughts minus the advantage of input from others in our community and through the planet.
Those whose voices grow in an effort to abrogate our fundamental rights are just trying to climb to positions of power over the remainder of us if their point of view requires precedent. We should all, stand against such calls, regardless of our differences and observe our rights by demanding those rights for all.
Let us not forget the other more significant rights like freedom of religion and that all are created equal. If specific hypocrites attempt to see hate language as alleged free speech then it must be outlawed as it contradicts other more significant fundamental human rights
I consider freedom of speech to be a standard which ensures that we keep the belief that all are created equal and allows freedom of religion. The remainder of your opinion perplexed me. If a hypocrite sees hate language as free speech and we outlaw free speech due to it...what have we got? I find many comments people make to be hateful when viewed from an angle different from the one they're coming from. Since I consider it to be hateful should their viewpoints be outlawed? You would not be competent to emotionalize the abortion argument. I find pro lifers opinions to be extremely hateful.
Posted on June 24, 2015 at 07:56 PM