|
View Full Version : Free speech
spuriousmonkey 10-23-06, 03:13 AM The following is an example that led me to the topic of free speech.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6075934.stm
The US state department official who said that the US had shown "arrogance and stupidity" in Iraq has apologised for his comments.
Alberto Fernandez, who made the remarks during an interview with Arabic TV station al-Jazeera, said he had "seriously misspoke".
His comments did not represent the views of the state department, he said.
"Upon reading the transcript of my appearance on al-Jazeera, I realised that I seriously misspoke by using the phrase: 'There has been arrogance and stupidity' by the US in Iraq," he said.
"This represents neither my views nor those of the state department. I apologise."
This leads me to believe that either the man is completely incompetent and should be fired. He spoke with al-Jazeera and didn't realize that he might be careful in what he says, and especially he shouldn't tell them the truth.
Or the man lies now because he was pressured from above or given a bribe, which makes him a spineless git and therefore he should be promoted.
------------------
And all this leads me to contemplate the nature of free speech:
Why is it not allowed to have an opinion that goes against the official government policy. Isn't that what freedom of speech is all about? that we are individuals with our own opinions. And sure government officials do what their bosses tell them to do, but surely they are allowed to have a personal opinion and should be able to express them.
If the views of the government are right no criticism can hurt them. If they are wrong it is the duty of every citizen, including government officials, to criticise the government.
Zakariya04 10-23-06, 05:48 AM Dear Spuriious
Thank you for the thread you have started.. i read the above with great interets..
As you are no doubt aware spurious, Freedom of spech is just a nice phrase for politicians to use when the con us in their attempts to preserve and enhance their power....
I am afriad that only one thing talks in this world and that is money!!!
Pure Freedom of speech is nice in theory but will never happen...
#############################
Take care
zak
spuriousmonkey 10-23-06, 05:58 AM May we speculate then on the reasons why free speech will never happen?
One major reason would be 'biology'. It is important in every species not to stick out in the wrong way. It can seriously reduce your fitness. When mating season arrives it is of course better to outshine your competitors but this is usually not done by sticking your neck out.
The human is a social species. Free speech is a philosophical concept.
Can these two concepts ever match up?
If everything is geared towards a career there is an automatic hindrance to free speech. Networking is not done by agitating people. Networking is done, like in all primates, by social grooming. We do not search our target for flees and lice. We talk to them. Praise them. Have small talk with them. Agree with them. Do not agree with them when they expect us not to agree. In short we make them feel safe and good.
Free speech can be awkward as we have seen in this example, and let us not forget that this is not about the USA. You can see this in every society.
Therefore the question arises if there can be free speech if a price is attached to everything you say.
tablariddim 10-23-06, 06:28 AM It seems to me that free speech is conditional, free up to a point. If I really speak my mind and express negative feelings about a situation or a person with my wife, she gets upset, points out all my shortcomings and we argue. If I tell members of my family that their not as good to me as they make out, they sulk. If I tell my friends that they have let me down and point out the reasons, they either play dumb and deaf, or break the relationship, or leave the damn' country. Free peech is apparently ok, until you get personal.
kazakhan 10-23-06, 07:16 AM And all this leads me to contemplate the nature of free speech:
Why is it not allowed to have an opinion that goes against the official government policy. Isn't that what freedom of speech is all about? that we are individuals with our own opinions. And sure government officials do what their bosses tell them to do, but surely they are allowed to have a personal opinion and should be able to express them.
I would think it obvious that this mentality has come from the corporation. Generally an employee is not allowed to publicy criticise their employer and often not even privately.
If the views of the government are right no criticism can hurt them. If they are wrong it is the duty of every citizen, including government officials, to criticise the government.
Well of course but how many politicians believe that...
vslayer 10-23-06, 09:50 AM as a private citizen he sholud have the right to criticise his government all he wants, but when he is acting as a representative of the government he sholud be relaying the views of the government, not his own.
of course some people seem to have trouble defining personal and professional, hence the trouble 'ole clinton got into by giving it to monica
Nikelodeon 10-23-06, 12:16 PM So Government employees should just be a bunch of Yes-men?
Diplomats should get to say whatever they want to heads of state! After all, freedom of speech! It's not like they're representing 299,999,999 other people!
vslayer 10-23-06, 06:26 PM So Government employees should just be a bunch of Yes-men?
no, but once the government has reached a concensus then as a representative of that government, that is the position they should take
TW Scott 10-23-06, 10:22 PM Actually I have always see free speach as just the legal freedom to say whatever you want, whenever you want. However it does not free you from the consequences. For example
It is completely legal for me to insult anyone in office. It is also completely legal for a whole community to shun me becuase they support said person. The Dixie Chicks discovered this in the past to their dismay.
It is completely legal for a person to give a hate speach as long as they do not incite a riot or any crime. However it is completely legal for that person to find that no business will deal with them.
It is completely legal to express your beliefs. However it is you responsibility to make sure that you are not falsely representing your beliefs as some one elses.
...all this leads me to contemplate the nature of free speech:
Why is it not allowed to have an opinion that goes against the official government policy. Isn't that what freedom of speech is all about? that we are individuals with our own opinions.
Ask all the Sciforum members who've got me, or others, on their ignore lists.
Go ahead, ask.
Why is the local demographic so philosophically inbred?
Ask.
No need. The answer is self-obvious.
No need. The answer is self-obvious.Feel free to exit Mr G:D Though you have one of the best avatars.:(
Feel free to exit Mr G
And leave you all to just inbreed because it feels good?
...you have one of the best avatars.:(
A consequence of properly invested natural ability.
A consequence of natural ability.I like your sentence structure and sarcasm:p
I like your sentence structure and sarcasm:p
The confluence of syntax and sin tax.
mountainhare 10-24-06, 10:58 PM Mr. G:
Ask all the Sciforum members who've got me, or others, on their ignore lists.
Go ahead, ask.
Are you claiming that ignoring someone amounts to censorship?
Businesswiz 10-24-06, 11:16 PM The following is an example that led me to the topic of free speech.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6075934.stm
This leads me to believe that either the man is completely incompetent and should be fired. He spoke with al-Jazeera and didn't realize that he might be careful in what he says, and especially he shouldn't tell them the truth.
Or the man lies now because he was pressured from above or given a bribe, which makes him a spineless git and therefore he should be promoted.
------------------
And all this leads me to contemplate the nature of free speech:
Why is it not allowed to have an opinion that goes against the official government policy. Isn't that what freedom of speech is all about? that we are individuals with our own opinions. And sure government officials do what their bosses tell them to do, but surely they are allowed to have a personal opinion and should be able to express them.
If the views of the government are right no criticism can hurt them. If they are wrong it is the duty of every citizen, including government officials, to criticise the government.
Thats why the Bush people have done this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sq8QvR6N4_o
spuriousmonkey 10-25-06, 01:37 AM I postulate that there is no 'free speech' per definition.
You have the right to kill anyone you want. If you accept the consequences.
However, nobody talks about 'free murder'.
Theoryofrelativity 10-25-06, 03:40 AM This reminds me of my 'you have no rights' thread.
Other than those bestowed upon you by the ruling body when it suits them for as long at it suits them to be revoked at any time when it suits them.
Zakariya04 10-25-06, 03:49 AM However, nobody talks about 'free murder'.
Good morning Spurious
I hope all is going well for you
If murder was free then you would not have to pay for it with consequences.
therefore the act of murder is not free
Equally free speech is also a farce as everything you say will have a cosnequence.
which completely contradicts what i said about money and speech in my previous post.. Obviously if you have mney you can say what you want but you pay for it with money and influence therefore it is not free.
#########################
take care
zak
spuriousmonkey 10-25-06, 03:51 AM Good morning Spurious
I hope all is going well for you
If murder was free then you would not have to pay for it with consequences.
therefore the act of murder is not free
#########################
take care
zak
And the same is valid for speech.
Other than those bestowed upon you by the ruling body when it suits them for as long at it suits them to be revoked at any time when it suits them.
And isn't that what we are seeing happening right in front of our eyes in the US and even the UK. Rights are taken away in the name of protection against a threat.
Zakariya04 10-25-06, 03:58 AM And the same is valid for speech.
Hi spurious you are right, i must have been editing my last post when you were replying!!
################
take care
zak
spuriousmonkey 10-25-06, 04:05 AM Why do we make such a fuzz about free speech then? Especially in the one country where there seems more pressure than in any other western society on what you can say.
Zakariya04 10-25-06, 04:18 AM Hi Spurious
well i think you know as well as me, that it is used as a facade to confuse the normal people into following some disgusting (for want of a stronger word perhaps) political plicy or agenda.
To make people think they have more than someone else to make them think that they are in a "higher society" etc...Which is all to gain support ofr the above.
######
as always
Zak
Denmark (19th) dropped from joint first place because of serious threats against the authors of the Mohammed cartoons published there in autumn 2005. For the first time in recent years in a country that is very observant of civil liberties, journalists had to have police protection due to threats against them because of their work.
Althou predicted it's a bit annoying loosing our press freedom to a bunch of rawing mad fanaticl muslims.
oh well, Points to muslim fanatics and extra credits for wide and long term effects.
TOUCH MY PEE PEE!!!!!
please?
sure thing lover boy, however you might want to put your hose away as i will yank it so hard Chuck Norris will scream for mercy.
|