Is freedom of speech a human rights issue???? - Page 2

Stinger · 11-30-07, 09:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PeteEU

Eh?

So for you if a goverment prevents you for speaking your mind, then its bad, but when a private person/company/organisation does the same, then its all okay? [/quote]

Depends. If government denies your right to speak in some circumstances it is a violation of your right. For instance if you walk into a courtroom the judge will tell you not to talk or speak until he allows it. That is NOT a violation of your free speech. If you write a blog note or rent a hall to give a speech and the government shuts you down because it doesn't like what you are saying that is a violation of your freedom of speech. If a private organization is holding a gathering and having speeches and you demand they let you speak and they say no, that is not a violation of your freedom of speech. If someone, a private citizens, objects to your speech and states so publicly that is not a violation of your freedom of speech.

Quote:

What kind of warped world do you live in? Goverment is not the only "enemy" there is out there you know.

Have you ever read the 1st amendment?

Quote:

A person shouting fire in a crowded theatre is just expressing himself, but his action is also dangerous as hell. Should he be punished for shouting?

For inciting a riot or disturbing the peace, yes.

Quote:

Or a someone spreading/starting lies about a person, and said person is attacked by others because of said lies.. is the that "someone" just expressing his right to free speech?

If the person knows they are lies and repeats them, and the person is not a public figure, that is slander.

Quote:

A company spreading false information to hurt a competitor, is that just freedom of speech?

If they know it is false they can face civil consequences.

Quote:

A news organisation airing false information to promote a political agenda.. is that free speech?

You'd have to be more specific.

Quote:

As I said, its all relative, and the political correctness and people in power dictate what "free speech" is.

No, your constitutional guaranty has to do with GOVERNMENT preventing your free speech. Read the 1st Amendment.

Khayembii Communique · 11-30-07, 10:55 AM

Quote:

Depends. If government denies your right to speak in some circumstances it is a violation of your right. For instance if you walk into a courtroom the judge will tell you not to talk or speak until he allows it. That is NOT a violation of your free speech.

So free of speech really isn't free, is what you're saying.

Stinger · 11-30-07, 11:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Khayembii Communique

So free of speech really isn't free, is what you're saying.

From government prohibition, go read the 1st Amendment.

Hatuey · 12-01-07, 01:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stinger

From government prohibition, go read the 1st Amendment.

I think what Stinger is trying to say is obvious. If the government used an US Marine to tell me to shut up by putting a gun to my head. It would be a violation of my 1st amendment rights. If they used a proxy company like Blackwater. It wouldn't. Hooray for Stingers logic.

Bleeding Head Ken · 12-01-07, 02:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Khayembii Communique

Depends what you mean by "right".

Well, I'm not changing the dictionary definition. So it depends on what you mean by "depends."

Quote:

I am alive right now. If being alive gives me a "right to life" and someone comes along and denies me of that right by killing me, I no longer have that right. So what's that mean?

Well, if you own your life, then he has interfered with your ownership and effectively stolen your life. Once you are dead, you no longer have anyway, or at least, not in fashion that the rest of us can fathom.

Quote:

That means that having a "right to life" simply means being alive. So am I alive? Yes, until I die.

You are answering a question with a question. You claimed that the state "grants rights", and I asked how the state can grant you the right to life. If it did not grant that right, would you not have been born?

I suppose I could have taken a more Socratic approach: would it be correct in your view to say that rights do not exist without the state?

Quote:

There's no point in stating, then, that I "have a right to life" as I can just state that I am alive.

There's also no point in relying upon sophistry. You are the one that started this line of reasoning with the assertion that the government "grants rights." Now, if you are unsure of the definition of rights, perhaps you should reconsider that assertion.

Stinger · 12-01-07, 03:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hatuey

I think what Stinger is trying to say is obvious. If the government used an US Marine to tell me to shut up by putting a gun to my head. It would be a violation of my 1st amendment rights. If they used a proxy company like Blackwater. It wouldn't. Hooray for Stingers logic.

Showing how totally incompetent you are at reading what other people post and totally ignorant of what the 1st Amendment protects and doesn't protect.

Why am I not surprised.

Khayembii Communique · 12-01-07, 04:34 PM

Quote:

Well, if you own your life

You don't own your life. You are your life.

Quote:

You are answering a question with a question. You claimed that the state "grants rights", and I asked how the state can grant you the right to life. If it did not grant that right, would you not have been born?

My entire point was that there is no such thing as a "right to life". You're either alive or you're not.

Quote:

I suppose I could have taken a more Socratic approach: would it be correct in your view to say that rights do not exist without the state?

Yes.

Stinger · 12-02-07, 10:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Khayembii Communique

My entire point was that there is no such thing as a "right to life". You're either alive or you're not.
Yes.

5th Amendment "...nor be deprived of life...without due process of law"

Khayembii Communique · 12-02-07, 01:41 PM

Quote:

5th Amendment "...nor be deprived of life...without due process of law"

That is a government granted "right" and not a natural right. Which, of course, is irrelevant, as you can be killed at any time by anybody, so you don't really have such a "right". All that says is that if you are deprived of life without due process of law, the perpetrator will be punished by law.

Stinger · 12-02-07, 01:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Khayembii Communique

That is a government granted "right" and not a natural right. Which, of course, is irrelevant, as you can be killed at any time by anybody, so you don't really have such a "right". All that says is that if you are deprived of life without due process of law, the perpetrator will be punished by law.

No it's one we declare and insure it in the Bill of Rights. OUr rights do not derive from the government. Where our rights are protected. Then we also make it illegal for a private citizen to murder someone else.

So why are you having such a problem understanding it?