Freedom of speach

[dxrtqgmp]

Beeing able to speek freely, is one of the best thing in our world.

It has not always been that way, I beleive it was "invented" about the French Revolution (1789), and thx to USA, it has been spread all over most of the world. I think, before that, the church had a big saying.

I'm not here to preace, only to remind - and reflect.

But, what I see in some country, today, is scaring. The Govermont is taking control of , pretty much, all of our moves. And why is that?. hmm I could name a few reasons - but not here in this fine Forum (which I love)

Again / small dex, in a deep moment (and sorry, for reflecting - maybe just to deep)

[froggymcc]

Deep away, my freind.

[kevin]

This day has been coming for a long time, little bits of freedom taken out one piece at a time.. no one notices.
http://traditionalright.wordpress.com/2011/10/12/political-correctness-gone-mad/

[dracman]

I have always thought it was a better time living in the late '50s-early '60s. I'm tired of having to exercise caution when expressing myself, so mostly I keep a smile on my face and my big mouth shut. That being said,F**k 'em if they can't take a joke!

[charliels531]

Maybe I spent too much time being a lawyer, but I incline toward specifics. The citizens of the United States, Britain, and France all believe that they have freedom of speech; but the actual "freedoms" are so wildly different from place to place as to be mutually unintelligible. For example, this week the French parliament made it a crime to deny the Armenian genocide. Such a law would be incomprehensible under U.S. law. Likewise, the United States is the principal supplier of pro-Nazi literature which is banned in Germany.

On the other hand, I have a hard time explaining why naked boobies and money are, for various reasons and purposes, treated as "speech" by U.S. courts, but protest signs by high school students, even off school grounds, are not protected from action by the schools.

In the early 1970s the "Pentagon Papers", a broad overview of American conduct of the Vietnam War, were released by Daniel Ellsberg to two members of the U.S. Senate, who then released them to the New York Times and the Washington Post. The Nixon Administration tried to stop their publication. Because of the manner of their release (through senators) they were held to be legally available for publication. A friend who was a British solicitor explained to me that under British law the papers had "freedom of opinion", but not "freedom of speech". That is, a British paper could publish all the editorials it wanted giving its opinion that the war was being horribly mismanaged, but could not release the factual basis for that opinion.

Likewise, in the United States it is pointless for a public figure to sue for libel; on the other hand, in Britain libel suits are ridiculously easy to prove and damages are exceedingly generous.

[rgroberts9612]

It is now against the law to speak your mind in hearing distance of obama. You will be arrested by the Secret Service.

[SHOLO2]

It should be taken in serious consideration that the secret service always has to take the better part of caution in protecting the president...always has...as there is no telling how many opposing opinions with little sense of time and manner of expression thereof are detained by the service during presidential appearances. Not to mention those spied upon by law enforcement officials...such an approach to protection minimizes the chance of incidents like the congresswoman giffords shootings...

[charliels531]

Ironically, President Obama has modified access rules to make himself the most accessible president since President Carter. Given how many armed and dangerous racists there are in Kansas, there are many obvious dangers involved.

During the recent Bush Administration no one not specifically vetted was allowed to be in the same room as Shrub, and anyone declining to wear a pro-Bush button was usually arrested.

Each president chooses his own access rules. And that has nothing to do with free speech.

[rgroberts9612]

It has everything to do with free speech. But, then, I wouldn't expect anyone from the state of Washington, the home of the racist gun toting skinheads to understand that. You dump on Kansas, sir, and I will respond in kind.
: moderator note :
No room here for political / religious arguments