On 4/28/06, Andreas Haugstrup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I'm saying that freedom of speech is the freedom to say anything you want at any time.
Now the law defines it differently. And constantly changes it's definition of it. But I'm not talking about the law... just talking about actual freedom. I think it's important to make the distrintion between "legal definitions" and "definitions".
That's fair.
Well, what the USA's government calls freedom of speech never included that. But I think that by the definition of the words "freedom" and "speech" in the dictionary, it would include that.
(I disagree with the USA government's law and say then that there actually isn't freedom of speech. But,... I'm not trying to get into an argument here.)
On Fri, 28 Apr 2006 15:56:38 +0200, Charles Iliya Krempeaux
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> To be honest, I'd rather not have anything or anyone take away my or
> anyone
> else's freedom of speech.
>
> Doesn't matter what you say or what you talk about, and no matter how
> distasteful it is to others. (Freedom of speech means anything can be
> said
> at any time.)
Err... I'm confused. Are you saying that to you, personally, freedom of
speech should be tht anything can be said at any time? Or are you saying
that freedom of speech is that anything can be said at any time?
I'm saying that freedom of speech is the freedom to say anything you want at any time.
Now the law defines it differently. And constantly changes it's definition of it. But I'm not talking about the law... just talking about actual freedom. I think it's important to make the distrintion between "legal definitions" and "definitions".
The first we can agree to disagree on, that's a matter of opinion.
That's fair.
I
believe that certain types of speech should be restricted
(Misappropriation of name or likeness for example). The latter is just
wrong. Freedom of Speech has never included a carte blanche to say
anything.
Well, what the USA's government calls freedom of speech never included that. But I think that by the definition of the words "freedom" and "speech" in the dictionary, it would include that.
(I disagree with the USA government's law and say then that there actually isn't freedom of speech. But,... I'm not trying to get into an argument here.)
Libel and slander restrictions has existed well before freedom
of speech was ever invented as a concept, and there's a long history of
certain types of speech being restricted (some worse than others; sedition
acts being pretty bad, "fighting words" making more sense).
Hmmm,... I think you are talking about what the USA government defines as "freedom of speech". I guess I should mention that I'm not American. I'm Canadian.
Also, I don't really think we're arguing over the same thing. I think you're talking about "legal definitions"... where (I guess you could say) I'm talking about "dictionary definitions".
I agree that the USA's legal definition of "freedom of speech" never included any of that. (And that's fine.) But I (personally) want real freedom.
See ya
--
Charles Iliya Krempeaux, B.Sc.
charles @ reptile.ca
supercanadian @ gmail.com
developer weblog: http://ChangeLog.ca/
___________________________________________________________________________
Make Television http://maketelevision.com/
SPONSORED LINKS
| Fireant | Individual | Typepad |
| Use |
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
- Visit your group "videoblogging" on the web.
- To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
