What do you consider freedom of speech?
KenHall on the net says that in the UK speech promoting Osama Bin Laden is illegal. He considers this to be an unjust law. I disagree. Here is my rebuttal:
What are your thoughts on limits to the first amendment?
There are already limits, by the way, and if you don’t know this, then don’t post a comment. Get educated, then talk to me.
You cannot perjure, slander, or sell government secrets, or look at child porn, the list goes on but there’s a sample.
What is the limit? No limit cannot possibly be a just law (or lack of one)… therefore, what is the proper limit to freedom of speech?
I say the natural law dictates “you should not make aggression on one another, lie, or trespass” should indicate where to set the limit.
Do any of you disagree, if so, why?
Do any of you agree, if so, why?
The child porn thing is part of “making aggression” (using power and influence to corrupt a small child) and a “trespass” (you have no right to touch little children like that, let alone have sex with them) therefore even pornography can fall under the category of the natural law I described.
You completely avoided the fact that not all speech can be free. You forgot slander, perjury, government secrets, and the fact that owning child porn makes you a criminal as much as owning an illegal unliscenced weapon does.
Possession is 9/10ths of the law, so they say. But the fact is, you completely ignored the problem by pretending it doesn’t exist, and then stating your view that nothing a person says, prints, or exhanges with others should be illegal.
Feel free to debate the point, my friend. I welcome criticism. But you dodged it.
Icetender- you would not be barred from slander but you would be sued? For what?
If slander is not illegal according to you, there is no case! You’re engaging in doublespeak. You can’t have it both ways. It either is legal or it is illegal.
Freedom of Speech should only go as far as both morality and justice can go with it.
And to every liberal/socialist out there… Freedom of Speech is not Freedom to RIOT. There is a difference. If the KKK or a group of Nazis claims free speech during a march or demonstration because “no one is getting hurt”, that is not freedom of speech. That is freedom to riot, due to the fact that there message is full of hate, bigotry, and stereotypical lies, and that is a right that does not exist.
Slander, libel, and perjury are also unacceptable because the statements are completely untrue. If one wishes to write or give a speech about someone or something, they should accept the facts of that subject. You should not be able to lie or cheat to “boost” your way up the journalism or political ladder. It is morally wrong.
But wait, I know some of you reading this post are saying “morality has nothing to do with freedom of speech”. Once again, you’re wrong. Morality has EVERYTHING to do with freedom of speech. Morality is the reason freedom of speech was created. But also, morality should be allowed to keep freedom of speech in check. When you go to a soldiers funeral to burn a flag and smash their religion, etc., in the name of protest because freedom of speech allows you this right, this is not freedom of speech, this is freedom to RIOT, which again, does not apply to anybody. How would you feel if someone went to your funeral to smash the ideology that you believed in.
Also, these “victimless” crimes like kiddie porn and such are completely outside of freedom of speech. It is completely immoral and unjustified. I don’t care if you’re a peder*a*s*s and you get off to kiddie porn. You are sick, are no benefit to society and are a disease to society.
Ladies and Gentlemen, in conclusion, freedom of speech is not a freedom to riot. Please remember the golden rule, Do unto others as you would want done upon yourself. When I see freedom of speech, I don’t see protesting military funerals, burning flags or being a pedephile in your freedom of speech. I see PEACEFULLY protesting a government’s decision. I see a civil liberty not only governed by the people and the government, but also governed by morality and justice.
Did Sexism Exist in Early Human History?
Warren Farrell makes the following claim in his book “The Myth of Male Power”:
“Sexism? or Bisexism?
Am I suggesting that sexism was a two-way street? Yes. We think of sexism as having kept women less powerful than men for centuries. In fact, for centuries neither sex had power. Each had roles. Her role: create a family. His role: protect a family. Her role: gather the food. His role: hunt the food. If *both* sexes were restricted to roles, it is not accurate to call it sexism, but sex roles. We have lived not in a sexist world, but in a bisexist world.”
excerpted p37, 2nd edition.
What do you think?
Did Sexism Exist in Early Human History?
Who really holds the power?
Your question is too much of a generalization to answer accurately without going into massive detail.
‘Who really held the power’ is really the most relevant question across cultures and throughout history.
‘We think of sexism as having kept women less powerful than men for centuries’ You do as a Feminist living in this period of history, in the Western World. A brief look at your history books, a brief look at different countries and cultures you will find the answer to who always holds the power.
Did your working class man have as much political influence as the middle class female early Feminist in the UK?
Does a black inner city youth have the same life chances as a white middle class woman today in the UK?
Does a white disabled man, or a white middle class child with learning disabilities have the same power as an able bodied black female?
Look back to industrialization, the Poor Laws, the 1833 Factory Acts etc etc.
The facts are easily found throughout history and governmental statistics are readily available.
Discriminations and oppressions intersect. Your social class is a much better indicator of whether or not you will be discriminated against than your gender. Your social class is a much better indicator of your lifechances than gender throughout time, throughout the world. The early Feminist laws ignored middle class call girls and criminalized street prostitutes. The 1842 Mining Acts were driven by ideas of middle class morality (girls and women stripped to the waist, as men did, when the women trucked coal to the pit head).
There is a heirachy of oppressions and discriminations throughout history, throughout cultures. Gender is certainly not the best indicator, it is one of many.
Should abortion remain a woman’s right to choose, even though it is probably immoral?
Things do not become illegal, just because they are immoral. Moral decisions are usually made by individuals, rather than by act of government.
In the abortion debate, there are many anti-abortionists who confuse the issue of morality with the law. Abortion, they reason, should be illegal because it is immoral.
By contrast, the “pro-choice” lobby argue that abortion should be a woman’s right to choose. However, just because women have the right to choose, it does not necessarily follow that any choice they make will be a good moral choice. Giving people the right to choose means that people can make bad choices!
The strange thing is that I never hear feminists acknowledging that abortion is a moral problem and I never hear anti-abortionists acknowledging that there could be significant problems in outlawing abortion.
Joan H seems to reject morality completely. As long as you do what is right for you, you can “fuk” (sic) the rest of the world. What a depressing outlook!
Juan Hombre: I’m sorry for the contentious (but not necessarily false) premise! If you read the full question, I hope you will see that I was trying to establish the point that there could still be a moral problem with abortion, even if we believe that abortion should be a woman’s right to choose. I wasn’t trying to “impose” my view on others because you can disagree with the premise if you want to (and you do) but please support your disagreement with reasons. Just saying that abortion should be a woman’s right to choose is not a justification for concluding that abortion is not immoral.
“Veritas” gave a very interesting answer in making the point that, even though the law cannot legislate against all that is immoral, the law should still have an ethical basis. In allowing women to abort, there is a violation of human rights. In many ways I agree. However, in allowing women a right to choose, the law is passing on the moral problem to its citizens. It is not actually advocating abortion. The right to choose does not remove the moral problem. In practice, the state cannot stop abortions. The only people who can, in practice, stop abortions are pregnant women. That’s why I believe that, if the pro-life lobby really want to stop abortions taking place, they should focus on the moral choice that women have the right to make and they should stop focussing on the law, which is ineffective anyway.
“Chrissi” is one of several people who appears to have completely missed my point. If we allow women to have freedom of choice on this issue, then nobody is “forcing” a women to have a child against her will. The woman has the right to choose. However, giving women the right to choose means that they have the capacity to make immoral decisions and many in the “pro-choice” lobby seem to be completely ignoring the moral issue. They are pretending that the moral issue doesn’t exist. They are supposing that something is moral just because it is legal or they are suggesting that anything is ethical as long as it’s in your own self-interest. That is a terrifying attitude but, sadly, an increasingly common attitude.
You don’t state whether you think that it is acceptable that morality doesn’t necessarily play a roll in law making. I think that it should but, unfortunately, often doesn’t. Our moral code derives from fundamental Christian principles, and that they both should inform the laws that we choose to live under. I don’t think that mankind was capable of creating a set of moral principle’s to live by, without drawing from religious teachings because, how would they know that they had created a truly moral code?
However, I am well aware that some of our laws seemed to have had a morality bypass during their making. And abortion, is top of the list for me. I know that all those things that might be considered immoral, can’t necessarily be made illegal. But in those areas where we do create legislation, then surely there shouldn’t be a conflict between morality and the law.
Back to abortion, which I think can only be justified in the most extreme cases. Feminists, in their zeal to give more and more power to women, seem to have bullied the government and medical researches into giving them what they want, “The Woman’s right to choose”. If ever there was a bit of creative morality, that’s it. That’s why I stated above, the danger in mankind inventing morality out of thin air. The woman’s, “right to choose” can be re-interpreted as “the baby has no inherent right to life” and “the man, also, has no say in the matter”. This looks like feminists gaining power for its own sake, regardless of moral considerations. Isn’t it also a direct assault on what it is to be a woman, caring, nurturing. Shouldn’t this operate at an instinctive level. If we don’t care for our children why should we care for each other, not to mention the old, the sick.
I believe that there are about three hundred and eighty thousand abortions in the UK alone, each year. Because the legislators have given a green light to abortion, and the medical profession are quite happy to carry them out, then women think that all moral considerations have been taken care of on their behalf. But, as you point out in your question, women still have a moral choice to make. Following my logic, abortion, on the scale that currently exists, wouldn’t be allowed under the law, because I would not pass immoral legislation. Where is the so called ‘Human Rights’ for unborn, never to be born, children.
Feminists, don’t see a moral problem, because the left wing zealots don’t believe in God or religion. They are truly operating in their own moral universe.
Why doesn’t the UK ditch the royal family?
Why don’t you Nigels lose that old world nonsense that wastes loads of your own taxpayer money. What exactly do the royals actually do? I mean I ain’t british and I’ve always wondered whats keeping y’all from knocking them off their high chair. At least then I might actually get to see something interesting on the news for once.
So many reasons, I’ll list but a few.
The Royal Family is the current incarnation of a legacy that goes back in time to the very beginnings of human civilisation – every tribe needs a chief.
The Queen monitors the morality of all UK law, thanks to her we don’t have anything as ridiculous as the “Freedom policy” or whatever Bush Jnr called it.
The Monarchy and all associated pageantry and buildings bring in huge tourist revenue to an island that is otherwise uninviting.
The Queen is the head of the UK and the commonwealth, we do not live under one flag. When a real war breaks out we can fight for Queen and Country – many nations united under one figurehead. She transcends all national pride and unites millions of people.
To recap, so far the Monarchy provides Law & Order, prosperity, and unity in the face of oppression.
Not seeing a reason to ditch it just yet.
By the way, the Queen is the Head of State, she is the most powerful woman in the Commonwealth. She is the absolute head of the Church. She monitors parliament. She has the power still to overrule anyone in the land and I wish she still had the power to sentence a man to death.
Effectively, the Queen is the head of an entire family who watch over us. The Monarchy ensures our survival in a brutal World. We all know (consciously or otherwise) that someone with an impartial view of events is making sure that the rest of the World doesn’t hate us. That we always fight the good fight, and shine a beacon of truth upon the World.
Ultimately, how would we replace the Monarchy?
Elect Presidents who serve their own interests? Steer the lawmakers and policy makers into a position where the once-most powerful nation in the world defaults on it’s debts?
No thank you. I’ll stick to the Queen and solvency thank you very much.
The sharia law, does not allow a Gay Muslim in the UK to work?
What if you are muslim Gay born in the UK, not married single, hate being gay. Does being Gay stop you from working.
In this case: This person has a degree, then studies a masters degree, worked for 2 company but did not tell them his sexual orientation.
Do you have to follow the Sharia Law if you are Gay muslim and live in the UK, what happens if you do not follow the law?
Can you follow the British Law? What happens if you are descriminated, and treat unfairly? Can you appeal in court?
What about if being Gay stops you from getting a job, your religion, then how are you suppose to get paid, run you daily life, food expenses etc, if there is no money and you do not get paid then how do you live your life, example get a house or buy one or even rented accomodation?
I find in this question an element of ridicule and bias against Islam. Yet presuming that you are ignorant of Islam I may remind you that Islam does not permit unnatural relationships. In case an evil has besieged you get a psychiatric treatment and also seek forgiveness of Allah Jallah.You don’t have to advertise your sinful conduct as advertising a sin is again a sin and against public morality no matter, on which part of the planet, you reside.
Powered by Yahoo! Answers