Defining the Global "Freedom of Speech"

[Ms Ann Thrope]

Re: Defining the Global

You are not free to make public information which is given in confidence.

You are not free to transfer information to a third party which is damaging to a person, company, or government (i.e., classified information, trade secrets, etc.).

[/QUOTE]

I see these two as being part of any contractual agreement I might have with an employer. But that's all.

I voted for no limits because that would be my ideal scenario. I see no reason to impose any limitations unless it is part of a mutually agreed upon business arrangement.

 

[MrBishop]

Re: Defining the Global

. It isn't easy in practice, mostly due to the number of laws that have to be considered, but it is a very straightforward and unambiguous concept. Judge each case on an individual basis, but always use the above guidline for reference; that reference being whether it harms others or conflicts with other existing rights.

Good wrapup of the issues at hand, but then we fall into who shall be the judge? This is an intellectual excercise with us at OTC as judges, juries and executioners.

I was thinking that we shouldn't be considering the internet as a large product of freedom of expression/speech. It's unmanageable. Too many points of view. Too many morals and individual definitions on what constitues a freedom or a right.

On OTC...although we have diffeerent viewpoints and come from different places all over the globe, we are still united in one 'family', and I believe that we might agree on the rules to judge by.

 

[outside looking in]

Re: Defining the Global

I see these two as being part of any contractual agreement I might have with an employer. But that's all.

All US guaranteed "freedoms" are a contract between you and the government. If you don't accept the terms of the agreement, no one will stop you from leaving. I would assume many other countries are similar.

 

[MrBishop]

Re: Defining the Global

All US guaranteed "freedoms" are a contract between you and the government. If you don't accept the terms of the agreement, no one will stop you from leaving. I would assume many other countries are similar.

Talk to a few Cubans and see how they'd answer that particular statement.

 

[BeardofPants]

Re: Defining the Global

Talk to a few Cubans and see how they'd answer that particular statement.

I'd be no different... other than having to swim across in the clandestine cover of darkness.

 

[Gonz]

Before I read the thread & go off on another tangent, I'll say the limits to free speech are in situatiosn such as FIRE!!! being yelled in a crowded movie theatre.

Limits that expressly cease an immediate & unrevocable probability of anothers direct & actual physical harm. (such as the example above).

Limiting freedom of speech, by definition, means there is no freedom of speech.

 

[freako104]

i voted to minmise it so there are some laws but not many. nothing that would endanger people(yelling fire in a theatre) or racist. id rather not hav people spouting their hate around

 

[Puma]

Opinions must always be protected. "Fire!" is not an opinion. Other than that, chaotic uncontrolled freedom of speech fixes itself. If I say you're an asshole that rapes monkeys you're free to do the same to me and the entire populace will look down on me for my provocative lies, whether the law tells them to or not. What's the problem with this?

And bishop, don't start crap about people leaving the country if they don't like it. If I was born here and put under the law of some asshole dictator who didn't allow freedom of speach, I wouldn't leave and go somewhere else I'd assassinate him and issue forth bladder juices upon his grave. That's the way the world works, the people are as entitled to the land as their government. If the government has a problem with than I strongly suggest they leave.

 

[freako104]

Re: Defining the Global

Opinions must always be protected. "Fire!" is not an opinion. Other than that, chaotic uncontrolled freedom of speech fixes itself. If I say you're an asshole that rapes monkeys you're free to do the same to me and the entire populace will look down on me for my provocative lies, whether the law tells them to or not. What's the problem with this?

And bishop, don't start crap about people leaving the country if they don't like it. If I was born here and put under the law of some asshole dictator who didn't allow freedom of speach, I wouldn't leave and go somewhere else I'd assassinate him and issue forth bladder juices upon his grave. That's the way the world works, the people are as entitled to the land as their government. If the government has a problem with than I strongly suggest they leave.

i didnt say you cant have teh opinion but i did say not to spout it out everywhere

 

[Puma]

What's wrong with spouting opinions? On the internet, you go to someone's site and read their opinion. Should you be able to tell them they have to take down their site because you don't like their opinion and find it 'offensive' to you?

 

[Professur]

Re: Defining the Global

I'd be no different... other than having to swim across in the clandestine cover of darkness.

ROFL. Sure, a set of water wings, and a blow up raft. Why didn't all those cubans think of that, instead of using all those rusty, overcrowded rafts they call boats.

 

[Inkara1]

Re: Defining the Global

Water wings and blow up rafts, of course made of plastic--a petroleum product.

 

[paul_valaru]

Re: Defining the Global

Limiting freedom of speech, by definition, means there is no freedom of speech.

I feel so ashamed, so dirty...I agree with Gonz

 

[MrBishop]

Re: Defining the Global

And bishop, don't start crap about people leaving the country if they don't like it. If I was born here and put under the law of some asshole dictator who didn't allow freedom of speach, I wouldn't leave and go somewhere else I'd assassinate him and issue forth bladder juices upon his grave. That's the way the world works, the people are as entitled to the land as their government. If the government has a problem with than I strongly suggest they leave.

That wasn't me...I believe that this was 'outside looking in'. I merely stated that for some people, just leaving the country isn't an option, as in Cuba.

BTW...if you don't have money, or access to guns, or access to explosives and the dictator was protected by hoardes of millitary personnel, how do you plan on assasinating him? DOn't say 'I'd build an army", because you and your buddies would be crushed, arrested, tortured and killed.

You know...there's a reason that Castro stayed in power that long, or Saddam, or Khadafi etc...it's not that they were loved..it's that they cruched opposition wherever it was found. It takes outside help to get results... you can either stay, fight and die or you can say "Fuck it...I'm outta here" and take as many people with you as you can.