Castro Posted February 2, 2006 ^ But my head is already banged up. I don't disagree with any of what he said, I just don't believe free speech is without limits. Neither does Ngonge. Or does he? Do you? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Johnny B Posted February 2, 2006 ^^ Good, now we´re all set, the limits of free speach/expression are slef-inclined not a preset or exceptional to any given ideology. To be more specific, You and only YOU set the limit of your expression, becouse we´ve diffrent ideas, beleive in diffrent religions etc etc , naturally our free expression or rather our normal utterance if u like is not appreciated by the ppl who beleive contrary to what we beleive and vice versa. therefore the limit has to be a self-inclined, not preset. I think there is where it itches. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Castro Posted February 2, 2006 ^ Is there a limit on freedom of speech? Or is it unlimited, by definition? That's what Ngonge has been trying to bang into our heads for days now? I think our good Ngonge is confusing lack of comprehension with disagreement with him. Johnny, so is it unlimited? Is nothing sacred anymore? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
xiinfaniin Posted February 2, 2006 ^^LOL@Is nothing sacred anymore? More like a question of whether you can shout fire in a crowded theatre, eh?. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ElPunto Posted February 2, 2006 Originally posted by Castro: Johnny, so is it unlimited? Is nothing sacred anymore? It is limited NOW in western countries - there is no such thing as unlimited free speech. Or free speech that doesn't have legal remifications if PRESET limits are crossed. And there is no need for sacredness - just common sense, tolerance and respect for the differences of others. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Johnny B Posted February 2, 2006 ^^ And he is right am afraid. What can be sacred? and in relation to what and who?. Maybe answering those questions might help us realize the relativeness of sacredness. What is a limitation? A self-inclined limit is diffrent from an imposed and legalized limit. thus i withhold the right to think that you´re a womanizer , becouse the thought i hold in my head is not in your favor or into your liking or doesen´t comform to the thought you have about yourself should in no way deny me my freedom of expressing myself. Yet i could of choice limit myself to not express myself. freedom of speach is a MUST HAVE right in a civilised society rich in thoughts, ideas, views, traits and favors,where a diffrence in views, oponions and ideology may seem to be a constant problem, but natural for human societies. does that single Islam out and deprive it the right or is Islam demanding beeing exceptional? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Castro Posted February 2, 2006 ^ Why is it then, good Johnny, that pornography (certainly a form of "expression") not publicly available everywhere, even in the west? Or are you saying it's the public that decides what is decent or indecent in expression. Well if that's the case, why does denying the Holocaust send one to jail in Austria as Ngonge kindly reminded us? There is a huge gray area saaxib. Public pressure, lobbying, the opinions of the majority, economics, history and politics all combine to define what is free in expression. With all these inputs, Mr. Logic, there is no way freedom of expression is unlimited. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Khayr Posted February 2, 2006 Originally posted by Johnny: ^^ And he is right am afraid. What can be sacred? and in relation to what and who?. Maybe answering those questions might help us realize the relativeness of sacredness. What is a limitation? A self-inclined limit is diffrent from an imposed and legalized limit. thus i withhold the right to think that you´re a womanizer , becouse the thought i hold in my head is not in your favor or into your liking or doesen´t comform to the thought you have about yourself should in no way deny me my freedom of expressing myself. Yet i could of choice limit myself to not express myself. freedom of speach is a MUST HAVE right in a civilised society rich in thoughts, ideas, views, traits and favors,where a diffrence in views, oponions and ideology may seem to be a constant problem, but natural for human societies. does that single Islam out and deprive it the right or is Islam demanding beeing exceptional? Nothing is Sacred anymore and infact the tides have changed to being ANTI-SACRED and showing hostility and Cynicism towards ANYTHING SACRED. thus i withhold the right to think that you´re a womanizer , becouse the thought i hold in my head is not in your favor or into your liking or doesen´t comform to the thought you have about yourself should in no way deny me my freedom of expressing myself. Yet i could of choice limit myself to not express myself. Johnny, What you are saying indicating is that you belief in Moral Relativism. That is what matters at the end of the day. i.e. I think its right therefor, it is Right! You don't say something to someone because it is not Favorable to say it as opposed to not BEING RIGHT to say it. No particular Pernnial principle to uphold, just Relativism. freedom of speach is a MUST HAVE right in a civilised society I disagree because what it paves way to is unabated, unchecked, subject to change tomorrow,standards of speech, writing etc. It is dajjalic and demonic because FREEDOM of speech/expression says that the 'I' trumps ALL ELSE and that their is no UNIVERSAL LIMIT. Things are Relative and subject to change tomorrow as long as the collective HUBRIS aka the MOB gather around to REJECT IT. Hence, the LIBERAL DEMOCRATIC IDEAL and what Evolution preaches (NO START-NO END) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Khayr Posted February 2, 2006 Originally posted by Castro: ^ Why is it then, good Johnny, that pornography (certainly a form of "expression") not publicly available everywhere, even in the west? Or are you saying it's the public that decides what is decent or indecent in expression. Well if that's the case, why does denying the Holocaust send one to jail in Austria as Ngonge kindly reminded us? There is a huge gray area saaxib. Public pressure, lobbying, the opinions of the majority, economics, history and politics all combine to define what is free in expression. With all these inputs, Mr. Logic, there is no way freedom of expression is unlimited. Well if that's the case, why does denying the Holocaust send one to jail in Austria as Ngonge kindly reminded us? Simply it is about POPULAR SENTIMENT i.e. what people FEEL to be RIGHT that is the DECIDING FACTOR, especially when it is congruent with ECONOMIC PROSPERITY. Public pressure, lobbying, the opinions of the majority, economics, history and politics all combine to define what is free in expression. It comes down to MIGHT is RIGHT i.e. those who wield the MOST MONEY (lobbyists)> Control the the media> Crate Popular Sentiment>Elect officials based on Popular sentiment>Change laws Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NGONGE Posted February 2, 2006 Originally posted by Castro: ^ Is there a limit on freedom of speech? Or is it unlimited, by definition? That's what Ngonge has been trying to bang into our heads for days now? I think our good Ngonge is confusing lack of comprehension with disagreement with him. Johnny, so is it unlimited? Is nothing sacred anymore? Lets not play that game, saaixb. In the times I had a dig at you in this discussion, I did so because you presented me with a weak argument and attempted to use the publishing of the drawings by French and Italian newspapers as proof! It was silly and I told you so. This had nothing to do with comprehension. Those that can’t comprehend still show no improvement. I have to go home now, but I promise that I shall reread our entire exchanges and see if I did accuse YOU of not being able to comprehend. I’m quite sure that I have not. But, in spite of my over all greatness and cleverness, I remain a human that, very occasionally, errs. Will continue later in the evening. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Castro Posted February 2, 2006 ^ I don't think you did either, but even if you did, I wouldn't be offended for "in spite of my over all greatness and cleverness, I remain a human that, very [rarely], errs." Do come back. This can of worms you opened needs some attention. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ElPunto Posted February 2, 2006 Originally posted by Johnny: freedom of speach is a MUST HAVE right in a civilised society rich in thoughts, ideas, views, traits and favors,where a diffrence in views, oponions and ideology may seem to be a constant problem, but natural for human societies. does that single Islam out and deprive it the right or is Islam demanding beeing exceptional? The above is a fine sentiment but you can't have it both ways - you must keep it consistent. You can't have exceptions for speech against blacks, Jews, the holocaust etc. Do you support removing those protections? Now, do you think that a civilized society with a civilized news media should caricature blacks by showing them to be gorrillas scavenging for dog food biscuits etc? Is that conducive to a harmonious and tolerant society? Does allowing that 'free speech' increase or decrease the tensions and ill will in a given society? Similar sorts of caricatures and 'free speech' stoked and fed the rise of Nazi Germany and the eventual result. I think wisdom and thinking of the consequences would lead one to accept that there must be some limits on free speech. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
N.O.R.F Posted February 2, 2006 If can i drop a few lines on this,,,, There is a limit to freedom of speech, but the question is what is that limit? There are billions of people living in hundreds of countries with thousands of cultures which all determine what is right or wrong dependent on their ideological views. These may all at the same time be influenced in some way by govn'ts and media. Therefore there will never be a universal agreement on freedom of speech or expression as we all have different views on what is or is not suitable. Being Muslims we do not (or try not to)offend other religions and expect the same in kind. But non-muslims do not care as they percieve muslims as being of the weaker faith (out of the 3 books). Freedom of speech is used by the west when they are trying to portray their 'superiority' over the ME but fail when someone criticises Isreal and is called anti-semetic etc etc. Therefore there are maybe 2 lines with regard the ME & the West. Our line is our religion (Islam)and theirs is Isreal and the Holocoast. I hope i made sense,,, Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Baashi Posted February 2, 2006 Ngonge and akhyaarta what you make of the existence of anti-defamation league in the US and their role vs. free speech. How about legal checks as far as libel, slander, and other offences are concerned. I don't have time but someone plz weigh this discussion from that angle, if you would. Ciao Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Castro Posted February 2, 2006 ^ This is only in the US atheer. Apparently, Europe has hate laws that often deal with the Holocaust and homophobia. Islamophobia is not really their cup of tea, so to speak. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
