what does the right to freedom of speech actually mean if we can't exercise said freedom to those we want to hear it? sure, a go to the clinic thingy's, have a petition, but nothing seems to affect people like a few thousand protesters on their front door step...i mean, if one protesters constant protests can do this, just think what a hundred protesters could do? a thousand? ten thousand!
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/06/16/nban16.xml
- Joined
- 23 Jul 05
- Moves
- 8869
Originally posted by geniusThats corruption in my mind. This government seems to be leaning more and more to the right
what does the right to freedom of speech actually mean if we can't exercise said freedom to those we want to hear it? sure, a go to the clinic thingy's, have a petition, but nothing seems to affect people like a few thousand protesters on ...[text shortened]... ww.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/06/16/nban16.xml
Originally posted by geniusI spose protecting the right of those to not have to hear it if they don't want to is as important as protecting the right to voice it.
what does the right to freedom of speech actually mean if we can't exercise said freedom to those we want to hear it?
Originally posted by UmbrageOfSnowSo can allowing a sufficiently insane individual the right to work up a hysteria through free speech, although I can't think of any examples off the top of my head...
Not at all, protecting people from what they don't want to hear can lead to some scary places.
There is a real problem with the concept of protecting "rights". Such a stance requires global agreement on what those rights are. This will never happen.
By their definition, rights are those actions and materials that are deemed to be necessarily accessible to all people. But if we differ on what those rights are, the very act of one protecting their rights may very well infringe on those of another. So then you get into these circular, paradoxical debates (and sometimes wars) that attempt to force on groups what rights they shall have a right to. To me, the whole thing is a philosophical and practical mess.
And the real danger: people are far too worried about protecting their rights and not concerned enough with fufilling their responsibilities.
Originally posted by geniusyou can talk all you want, but i have the right to ignore you as well. A main reason for freedom of speech is so that you can gain support for your ideas, and sooner or later I will have to listen.
what does the right to freedom of speech actually mean if we can't exercise said freedom to those we want to hear it? sure, a go to the clinic thingy's, have a petition, but nothing seems to affect people like a few thousand protesters on their front door step...i mean, if one protesters constant protests can do this, just think what a hundred protesters co ...[text shortened]... and? ten thousand!
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/06/16/nban16.xml
Originally posted by Pullhardthat may be so, but these people are paid to listen to us! that's the whole reason their there! they listen to the public, then act upon it. now, they don't seem to be wanting to do that as it's, well, inconvenient...
I spose protecting the right of those to not have to hear it if they don't want to is as important as protecting the right to voice it.
if you care enough about what you are trying to say, you will find your listeners. you will always need to put some effort into it to ensure that you are not wasting our time. Like that Sheehan lady, odds are if she wasn't camped outside bush's ranch, no one even know of care if she existed.
You just kind of have to know how to talk to the media. For instance: www.realultimatepower.net . Getting sued over freedom of speech will get ya in the media, and plenty of visitors. The woman who sued that kid actually helped him alot more than she hurt him.
**edited hyperlink, i had www.realultimatepower.com, supposed to be .net
Originally posted by Wajomabut isn't that kinda the point of protesting? i mean, who'se going to listen if you're holding a protest in you back garden? or in your local pub? sure, it's irritating, but it wouldn't be a protest if it wasn't. noone would listen if they couldn't see the protest.
Depends on whose platform it is, when it's public property there will always be conflicts i.e. when everyone owns it, no-one owns it....kinda a contradiction there so expect probs.