<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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.
And I'm Danish, it's all good. :o)
> 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.
But Freedom of Speech - The Concept, is a legal one. When people talk
about freedom of speech they're talking about the civil rights. They're
talking about the real world use of the term, not the dictionary
definitions of "freedom" and "speech" put together. The legal concept, the
civil rights we can talk about and how they relate to videobloggers. We
can also talk about a hypothetical future where citizens have the right
and exercise the right to say anything they want at any time (and it will
be a terrible future). I just wanted to know which concept you were
talking about.
--
Andreas Haugstrup Pedersen
<URL: http://www.solitude.dk/ >
Commentary on media, communication, culture and technology.
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.
