NationStates Jolt Archive

1) No, I'm not going to start with by saying it's morally right or any pathetic HR crap like that. Reason 1 is that it allows us to find out who all the kooks (http://www.guardian.co.uk/religion/Story/0,,1702104,00.html) are without having to spend a fortune on the intelligence service (oh the irony that they are using the same right to protest against others having that right... don't try bother me with technicalities).

2) Well... Reason 1 pretty much covered all my angles. I guess freedom on speech is nice on a personal level too.

After all tha I still have sympathy for Muslims over this issue. It's a culture clash and no one's willing to concede any ground. I think only a very small minority in the west really understand that it's about that is a picture of Mohammed. I'm not sure if there is any comparable situation for Christians. And the European press are just getting on their high horse and saying 'screw you, you can't tell us what to and what not to publish'.

I like the BBC third way - Broadcasting it on the news, but giving a warning that such an image was going to be displayed briefly, so should you shut your eyes right now. At least that's what I think they did.

:sniper: :mp5: :gundge: Kill the dumbassiand ones! Free speech for all they make me feel like :headbang: telegram me on nationstates if you agree

Free speech is good because nobody was ever murdered by a word. Unless that word came from Chuck Norris.

Free speech is good because nobody was ever murdered by a word. Unless that word came from Chuck Norris.

yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater and tell me no one will die

yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater and tell me no one will die

Only if Chuck Norris yells it. Then the theatre, and indeed, the whole block, would instantly incinerate.

Only if Chuck Norris yells it. Then the theatre, and indeed, the whole block, would instantly incinerate.

so no one would be trampled in the ensuing rush for the doors?
what i'm saying is that with the freedom to say what you want comes responsibility for what you say.

yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater and tell me no one will dieor yell that same word when standing in front of a firing squad. :D :D

so no one would be trampled in the ensuing rush for the doors?
what i'm saying is that with the freedom to say what you want comes responsibility for what you say.Whoot.

someone else who believes that Freedom comes with Responsibilities.

have a cookie... take two... heck, here's the keys to the bakery!

im in full support of some freedoms in life speech being one of them however it may seem obvious that this conflict was going to happen not only do we have muslims shouting the odds about a manky cartoon of a ''prophet'' but we also have in my oppinion a rampent nazi getting out of court by saying he was taken out of context in what he stated, im sorry but free speech goes both ways it is litteraly a double edged sword or a fart in an elevator either way someone is gonna get stunk out or cut to ribbons(not in that order lol) by the very nature of that which they try to protect.
i personaly can make a cartoon of muhammed *peace be with him* or if i so choose jesus*christ* (* for litteral effect ''gasps in awe'' ) if im found insulting anyone i get the same response i expect to give an that would be shut the hell up unfortunately in the cartoon muhammed respect all the freedom of speech has done is poked the flames a lil on an already growing inferno i just hope i and my family arnt around to see the enevitable eventual explosion



ps: whats a krook ?

A kook, not a krook. A kook is someone who is a bit odd, weird or eccentric. All in all it's a rather tame word.

I support extensive freedom on speech, but people should take responsibilty for what they say, and some people should grow thicker skins.

People should be free to say what they want, but should also be prepared to accept the responsibilities. We should never give in to the threats of those who hate these freedoms...the victory over radical Islam in Europe is an important sign of our commitment to preserving free discourse in Europe as well as the rest of the world.

Free speech doesn't entail an obligation to offend. Those pictures of the Prophet Mohammed are offensive, spiteful and pathetic. I think some sections of the European press are really just showing what repulsive little intolerant morons they really are. Having said that, they still have a right to be such morons but luckily everyone else has the right to say to their faces

yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater and tell me no one will die


You know, I've complained more than once about that disgusting little Holmes quote from US v. Schenck, but I think I'll take a slightly different stance today. If I were in a crowded theater and someone yelled fire, would I run? No, I'd look around for a goddamn fire. I am not a sheep, I am not some lemming that needs to be protected from the big bad world outside. Yeah, life sucks, yeah, there are malicious people, but anyone who would seek to limit my rights to "protect" me deserves nothing less than death.

Too many have died in the name of freedom to give it up because of some paternalistic desire to save your fellows from themselves, too many have given too much to throw it all away because someone is weak or easily offended. No, we need to draw a line.

Tyranny is rarely an overnight revolution, it more often comes from the slow encroachment upon personal liberty. I'm sick and tired of dancing around, of trying to make a million little caveats. Liberty means that people will do things you dislike. It means that people will do things you find morally repugnant. It means that people will insult your God, disrespect your country, burn your flag, and spit upon all you find beautiful or sacred. Liberty means that some people will get hurt, some will die, and nearly everyone will be insutled, offended, or made uncomfortable. Liberty means that you cannot trust the father figure of government to come and save you, it means that you need to be eternally ready, it means that you have only yourself to rely upon. Liberty also means that you might occasionally have to put your personal interests or opinions aside in order to defend those you hate. It means that you might have to get your hands dirty. Sometimes it even means that you have to kill. Those are the costs of freedom. As high as they are, they are better than the alternative.

Free speech doesn't entail an obligation to offend. Those pictures of the Prophet Mohammed are offensive, spiteful and pathetic. I think some sections of the European press are really just showing what repulsive little intolerant morons they really are.

Tough shit. Welcome to the free world, heres a gun and a helmet.

You know, I've complained more than once about that disgusting little Holmes quote from US v. Schenck, but I think I'll take a slightly different stance today. If I were in a crowded theater and someone yelled fire, would I run? No, I'd look around for a goddamn fire. I am not a sheep, I am not some lemming that needs to be protected from the big bad world outside. Yeah, life sucks, yeah, there are malicious people, but anyone who would seek to limit my rights to "protect" me deserves nothing less than death. you know what kills people in a fire? carbon monoxide poisoning. there are fires that produce an oderless gas that can kill you. so if there really was a fire, while you're looking around, chances are, you'll be dead.

Too many have died in the name of freedom to give it up because of some paternalistic desire to save your fellows from themselves, too many have given too much to throw it all away because someone is weak or easily offended. No, we need to draw a line.

Tyranny is rarely an overnight revolution, it more often comes from the slow encroachment upon personal liberty. I'm sick and tired of dancing around, of trying to make a million little caveats. Liberty means that people will do things you dislike. It means that people will do things you find morally repugnant. It means that people will insult your God, disrespect your country, burn your flag, and spit upon all you find beautiful or sacred. Liberty means that some people will get hurt, some will die, and nearly everyone will be insutled, offended, or made uncomfortable. Liberty means that you cannot trust the father figure of government to come and save you, it means that you need to be eternally ready, it means that you have only yourself to rely upon. Liberty also means that you might occasionally have to put your personal interests or opinions aside in order to defend those you hate. It means that you might have to get your hands dirty. Sometimes it even means that you have to kill. Those are the costs of freedom. As high as they are, they are better than the alternative.*claps.*

nicely said. if more people thought that way, the patriot act wouldn't be necessary.

Freedom of speech is important because it's unpopular ideas that have always led to progress. If freedom of speech wasn't a central tennent in the USA I'm sure wealthy slave owners would have silenced the abolitionists and slavery would have continued far longer than it did.

You know, I've complained more than once about that disgusting little Holmes quote from US v. Schenck, but I think I'll take a slightly different stance today. If I were in a crowded theater and someone yelled fire, would I run? No, I'd look around for a goddamn fire. I am not a sheep, I am not some lemming that needs to be protected from the big bad world outside. Yeah, life sucks, yeah, there are malicious people, but anyone who would seek to limit my rights to "protect" me deserves nothing less than death.

Too many have died in the name of freedom to give it up because of some paternalistic desire to save your fellows from themselves, too many have given too much to throw it all away because someone is weak or easily offended. No, we need to draw a line.

Tyranny is rarely an overnight revolution, it more often comes from the slow encroachment upon personal liberty. I'm sick and tired of dancing around, of trying to make a million little caveats. Liberty means that people will do things you dislike. It means that people will do things you find morally repugnant. It means that people will insult your God, disrespect your country, burn your flag, and spit upon all you find beautiful or sacred. Liberty means that some people will get hurt, some will die, and nearly everyone will be insutled, offended, or made uncomfortable. Liberty means that you cannot trust the father figure of government to come and save you, it means that you need to be eternally ready, it means that you have only yourself to rely upon. Liberty also means that you might occasionally have to put your personal interests or opinions aside in order to defend those you hate. It means that you might have to get your hands dirty. Sometimes it even means that you have to kill. Those are the costs of freedom. As high as they are, they are better than the alternative.

I know. too well. thats why I believe what I do

Free speech doesn't entail an obligation to offend. Those pictures of the Prophet Mohammed are offensive, spiteful and pathetic. I think some sections of the European press are really just showing what repulsive little intolerant morons they really are. Having said that, they still have a right to be such morons but luckily everyone else has the right to say to their faces

I think the Muslims who beat innocent people, threatened more terrorist attacks, vandalized property and threatened the murder of innocents (not to mention imposing Islamic law on Europe) are the repulisive, intolerant morons here.

Free speech has to allow people to offend others or it isn't free speech.

or yell that same word when standing in front of a firing squad. :D :D
Any firing squad worth its salt will take orders from their commander, not their prisoner!

Freedom of speech is important because it's unpopular ideas that have always led to progress. If freedom of speech wasn't a central tennent in the USA I'm sure wealthy slave owners would have silenced the abolitionists and slavery would have continued far longer than it did.


And to the victors go the spoils. The gov. and radical republicans re-wrote history after they conquered the south. :) And Abraham Lincoln did not share your respect for freedom of speech because he suspended writ of Habeas Corpous.

Freedom of speech is nothing without freedom to bear arms to protect that freedom.

Freedom of speech is nothing without freedom to bear arms to protect that freedom.

I'm sorry, but I think you misunderstand the consept "Freedom of speech".

I'm sorry, but I think you misunderstand the consept "Freedom of speech".


So I have the right but I don't have the right to defend it against those that would take it away? I'm sorry but that doesn't make sence.

So I have the right but I don't have the right to defend it against those that would take it away? I'm sorry but that doesn't make sence.

Guns won't defend your freedom of speech.

They might just be what is shooting at you from that line of men with guns.

Guns won't defend your freedom of speech.

They might just be what is shooting at you from that line of men with guns.


Ahhh but thats the problem the government will always have guns, and if they disarm the people, then they can do anything they wish. If the people still have weapons they can stop the government. Guns (weapons) are a peoples last line of defense against governmental tyranny.

Ahhh but thats the problem the government will always have guns, and if they disarm the people, then they can do anything they wish. If the people still have weapons they can stop the government. Guns (weapons) are a peoples last line of defense against governmental tyranny.

If you want your freedom of speech then:

A newspaper is going to provide that for you, a gun will not.

Not outlawing public speech is going to provide that for you, a gun will not.

Laws supporting your right to say what you want (and laws supporting others right to oppose what you say) is going to provide that for you, a gun will not.

A gun does not provide free speech, nor does it defend it.

If you want your freedom of speech then:

A newspaper is going to provide that for you, a gun will not.

Not outlawing public speech is going to provide that for you, a gun will not.

Laws supporting your right to say what you want (and laws supporting others right to oppose what you say) is going to provide that for you, a gun will not.

A gun does not provide free speech, nor does it defend it.


Laws can be used to end free speech. Soviet Russia, Maoist China,ect ect.

A newspaper is a mode of freedom of speech.

A gun provides defense. If my gov. told me that it was ending my freedom of speech I would fight the government and die a revolutionary rather then submit.

Ahhh but thats the problem the government will always have guns, and if they disarm the people, then they can do anything they wish. If the people still have weapons they can stop the government. Guns (weapons) are a peoples last line of defense against governmental tyranny.
The government has jet packs, man. You can't compete.

The government has jet packs, man. You can't compete.


I'ld rather die free then die a slave. As someone once said "Simple weapons are the weapons of the people, the complicated and advanced are the weapons of tyranny"

Laws can be used to end free speech. Soviet Russia, Maoist China,ect ect.

A newspaper is a mode of freedom of speech.

A gun provides defense. If my gov. told me that it was ending my freedom of speech I would fight the government and die a revolutionary rather then submit.

My government doesn't limit my free speech.
I also trust my government to not limit my free speech.
You don't seem to trust your government.

A gun still won't help you say whatever you want, underground newspapers and so on will. All a gun Might do is kill a bunch of police officers when those anti-free speechers come after you.

btw - listen to Desperate Measures, he has a sense of humour :D unlike me.

My government doesn't limit my free speech.tru
I also trust my government to not limit my free speech.
You don't seem to trust your government.

A gun still won't help you say whatever you want, underground newspapers and so on will. All a gun Might do is kill a bunch of police officers when those anti-free speechers come after you.


You should never trust your government. Government always grows and it seeks to dominate and control the people. It is a necessary evil yes, but it must be kept in check. The moment you "trust" your government and give away your ability to control it, is the moment it controls you.

You should never trust your government. Government always grows and it seeks to dominate and control the people. It is a necessary evil yes, but it must be kept in check. The moment you "trust" your government and give away your ability to control it, is the moment it controls you.

Ah hah, but see...

I control the government. You know why? Because I am the government, you know why? because I get to vote!

The government is made up of people, like you, who are people, like you, and who also want their right to exercise free speech.

As it is, my government is quite trustworthy. I'll stop trusting it if the nationalist or extremist parties ever take over.

A gun does not provide free speech, nor does it defend it.

not automatically, no. but if those with the guns decide to restrict speech, then speech will be restricted. and if you don't have the people with the guns on your side, you won't have much say in the matter.

not automatically, no. but if those with the guns decide to restrict speech, then speech will be restricted. and if you don't have the people with the guns on your side, you won't have much say in the matter.

I prefer Tianenmen Square style resistance much more.

Anyway, I have to be off.

I'd rather die free then die a slave. As someone once said "Simple weapons are the weapons of the people, the complicated and advanced are the weapons of tyranny"
I think I'd rather run.