do you think people should have certain speaking rights

[Andromeda18_]

what i am saying is if you want to go on about how you think murder is completely right in whatever case or if you want to say there should be no pledge of alligence in schools or whatever be my guest

You actually think saying that murder is okay and saying there should be no pledge of alligence in schools are on the same level?!

[Blight]

You actually think saying that murder is okay and saying there should be no pledge of alligence in schools are on the same level?!

I think you missed the point. If you are going to speak freely about somethings, you have to allow ALL things to be open to discussion. You can?t pick and choose. It?s like if someone wants to go around spouting racist shit, they are entitled to do so. It is F?ing BS, but if you want to protect free speech it has to be let in too.

[Andromeda18_]

I think you missed the point. If you are going to speak freely about somethings, you have to allow ALL things to be open to discussion. You can?t pick and choose. It?s like if someone wants to go around spouting racist shit, they are entitled to do so. It is F?ing BS, but if you want to protect free speech it has to be let in too.

I didn't miss the point, that's not the issue here. It's just that it sounded to me like he thinks that being against the pledge of alligence in schools is as bad as thinking murder is okay. I know he used this as an example but it sounded that way to me.

[Blight]

I didn't miss the point, that's not the issue here. It's just that it sounded to me like he thinks that being against the pledge of alligence in schools is as bad as thinking murder is okay. I know he used this as an example but it sounded that way to me.

The way it sounded to me was as simple as it is written. He took two ideas completely separate from one another to point out that know matter what you talk about, you should have the knowledge or done enough research to support your clams. The ideas were so abstract from one another for the purpose of illustrating that point.

Now agreeing with him is a whole other tree of fruit. When I first responded to this thread I took it as this being a developed method of speech, kind of like a debate. You come to the table with your little card of topics and you only talk about the issues with in the boundaries of your knowledge. But now I see it is being applied to speech in general, and ANY inhibition on my Bill of Rights is a big no-no. I would never accept a plan that would cripple my ability to express myself. I am really big on personal freedoms and this sort of thing just wouldn?t fly.

There are however gray areas where the lines of free speech can be crossed. Like if a journalist were to report on a big military operation before it happened and the enemy capitalized on it and a bunch of our soldiers ended up dead. I would be in great support of the Government capping any SOB that would knowingly put other people at risk of being killed to sell a news story.

If anyone is thinking, ?But what about your other statement about accepting free speech? The one about having to racist people have their say.? Well, they can have their say, but they will also have to deal with the consequences of their actions. People look at them as ignorant, bottom-feeding lowlifes. There are many things you have a right to do, but there will always be a penalty for any unacceptable actions (although an very poignant argument can be made that ?moral consequence? is some thing few people give a damn about anymore).

[Cyrus]

Andromedia you did miss the point i was just stating examples. of course they aren't the same i mean come on the getting rid of the pledge of allegiance or altering it is so much worst then murder (just joking)

[Cyrus]

i think a persons rights are a good thing but i also think people take them way to far. It's just like the phrase just because you can do something it doesen't mean you should. i guess i was just saying it's crazy to let people start up these huge debates about things they have know idea about in an age where in a half hour you could be decently educated on the facts with just a trip to the library or a internet connection.

I think the only way for us to really utalize our rights is to put other people in front of us. if i wanted to go say how much i have black people (which i don't) but if i did shouldn't i be treating them the way i want to be treated.

It's not even so much a tolerance issue as it is a decent human issue.

IF i really did think black people were inferior i would say something like...... I know that i am better then a black person is and i have done my research on crime and blah blah blah whatever but it's too bad i wish they were equal to me (crime was a steriotype and in no way do i think anyone of a different color is inferior to me) but yeah you get the point. You can be wrong in my eyes and still place a well done argument for your side and im cool with that. Just please know what your talking about or don't talk at all.

[Andromeda18_]

The way it sounded to me was as simple as it is written. He took two ideas completely separate from one another to point out that know matter what you talk about, you should have the knowledge or done enough research to support your clams. The ideas were so abstract from one another for the purpose of illustrating that point.

Andromedia you did miss the point i was just stating examples. of course they aren't the same i mean come on the getting rid of the pledge of allegiance or altering it is so much worst then murder (just joking)

I did get your point, I do get your point. Yet, even after you said you didn't mean anything by it it still sounds like that to me. It's no big deal really, and it didn't stop me from completely understanding your point of view. That said, unfortunately, there are people who think being against the pledge of allegiance in schools is anti-patriotic and for them that's worse than being a murderer.

Like if a journalist were to report on a big military operation before it happened and the enemy capitalized on it and a bunch of our soldiers ended up dead. I would be in great support of the Government capping any SOB that would knowingly put other people at risk of being killed to sell a news story.

I agree that sometimes journalists should keep their big mouths closed. However, I also think some countries take national defense to shameful extremes.

Well, they can have their say, but they will also have to deal with the consequences of their actions. People look at them as ignorant, bottom-feeding lowlifes. There are many things you have a right to do, but there will always be a penalty for any unacceptable actions (although an very poignant argument can be made that ?moral consequence? is some thing few people give a damn about anymore).

That's my opinion as well. Too bad not everybody sees racists as ignorant, bottom-feeding lowlifes.

[Cyrus]

thats the thing i mean obviously they are wrong and i think most people would agree with me the sad thing is a good number of them do their research it's just that they don't take the time to really learn it other then just biased research

[rav96]

Most Research (if not all) is Biased...trust me i did a 20,000 word research review as part of my dissertation last semester!!!

[Elcoholic]

There's alot of confliction in the right of free speech. As mentioned before there's racism which is also forbidden by the bill of right's (and conflicts with free speech) and the freedom of religion recently started to conflict with free speech (look at Guantanamo bay and some of the US new laws).

In my country freedom of speech is very important but the law against racism is more important. So you can say what you want as long as it doesn't conflict with the law against racism.

What's fucked up is the press and the way they decide the important topics. I really started to hate most press in the last couple of years. They make scandals over stuff nobody would normally care about. Probably the best example is the OJ case and since then the press have grabbed every oportunity to expose scandals no matter the consequences. We've had alot of scandals with our royal family lately it was all just blown up by the press. They keep showing it and nobody would care if they didn't hype it so much. Another thing is we have a slight 'problem' in our country that we get alot of people from poor countries such as Turkey and Morocco who come here to earn money and work. You can compare the group with the Latino's in the US with the same problems. Now for an extreme example if a murder is commited by one of them its all over the news for a couple of days, if that murder is done by a native resident than it won't even be mentioned. That's what I mean with the press decides the topics and they have to much influence in how we think (not many positive thought about foreign workers over here, almost bordering racism sometimes). I see that happening with so many topics nowadays and I'm not even talking about the gossip magazines going on about who cheated on who. Makes me sick.

(ps, anyone else having problems loading the forum? It isn't loading any avatars/sig's or other pictures over here)

[Ryujin]

The way that I see it is, lets say you could stop people from talking crap, or there was some law or something, who would judge what was and wasn't ok?. Let me explain, lets say you think you know a lot about "Anime X", and you probably do, now lets say someone comes in who knows MORE than you about it or has more up to date info, now if they start talking and you deem that they do not know what they are talking about because what you know as truth conflicts with what they know, so you silence them. But in this case Party B was the correct one and in the right seeing as Party B knew more than Party A.

So now, what if Party B stops Party A (You) from speaking because they know more than you, but you still know alot, how would you like that?. Basically what I'm trying to say from that is that everything is based on our own perspectives so what we percieve as talking crap may actually be the fact or a well informed opinion that we are just not aware of or did not know, so it is impossible to judge who is and isn't talking crap and therefore impossible to silence them. Especially considering there is no criteria for who judges what is and isn't crap...do you because you think you know better than the other person?

I'll just let people (including myself) ponder that one for a while...

[Gemini]

sometimes people can be think only one way. there is times with more than one answer or opinion. ahhh freedom of speech is a subject with no black and white line, maybe grey.

[rav96]

sometimes people can be think only one way. there is times with more than one answer or opinion. ahhh freedom of speech is a subject with no black and white line, maybe grey.

yes INDEED seconded (yet again)!!! you be one of wise simple yet effective words my man

hardly anything in life is black or white including the freedom of speech
GREY!!!

or for you americans GRAY!!!

[Gemini]

yes INDEED seconded (yet again)!!! you be one of wise simple yet effective words my man

hardly anything in life is black or white including the freedom of speech
GREY!!!

or for you americans GRAY!!!

haha, i meant gray

[onizuka17711]

At least at my school, they still have the pledge, but no one really does it anymore. We all just stand up during it. Personally, I think it's kind of stupid. I mean, what's the point?