Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Always beware when you are told you are free ALL the time the chances are someone is pulling a fast one.

In the UK incitement and defamation laws cover irresponsible use of free speech.

I defend the right of anybody to speek with the same vigor that I defend my right to tell them to feth off. I do not defend a person's right to walk down the street banging a drum and telling his neigbours they are worthless (ask Mattyrm what trouble this kind of behaviour causes).

The debate about who is freer is moot. You are all free to do what you want when you want. Your boss is free to fire you if you don't turn up to work. The police are free to persue and prosecute you if they think you broke a law. The courts are free to choose to prosecute you.

The only thing you can not escape are consequences.

The more rights you have or give the less freedom you have.

For example: I, as a UK citizen give up the right to carry a hand gun because I do not trust the state to effectively stop lunatics from owning guns. (incidentaly the NRA is portrayed as a bunch of loonies in the UK)

Personally I like the idea that a copper doesn't have to behave like everyone is potentially going to shoot him. I like the fact that some pale withered civil servant is pouring coffee by the gallon to watch street violence and direct police/ambulances to trouble spots. I like the fact that I can dress up as a chicken, go to the super market and by law pay £1 for a copy of the CCTV tape

There you go Rented Tritium I brought up guns just for you.

Seaward wrote:The Puritans get overplayed in history classes, especially, apparently, British history classes.

Probably moreso here with all of the control religious nutjobs have over books in our education system.

The point of my post was merely to say that none of us are actually "free" because its just a silly concept, we all have to follow regulations and rules and pay our taxes. I was merely saying that I find the right wing Americans who say ridiculous gak like "we are allowed to pick our Religion here in America!" to be tiresome.

And how free would we be if there were no rules and you didnt pay taxes? Then the strong would simply dominate the weak and that would decide your "freedom" for you. Needless to say my skinny 105lb missus would be in the gak.

Ultimately Its down to personal choice. I feel more free in England because the cops dont have shooters and its easier to get a pint and put a bet on, my missus feels more free here in the states because she doesnt see any CCTV cameras and the Queen hasn't got a palace.

Its whatever floats your boat, just dont be ignorant enough to think that America has a monopoly on "freedom"

Anarchy leads to tribalism leads to monarchy leads to feudalism leads to republic(ish)

Rented Tritium wrote:Do you guys really not get that this thread is actually about guns?

So someone else besides me caught on?

Sonophos wrote:The debate about who is freer is moot. You are all free to do what you want when you want. Your boss is free to fire you if you don't turn up to work. The police are free to persue and prosecute you if they think you broke a law. The courts are free to choose to prosecute you.

The only thing you can not escape are consequences.

Um, free speech refers to the idea that you can say what you like and suffer no legal consequences. Ignoring that means Syria has as much free speach as any western nation, and that's just silly.

Free speech doesn't mean no kind of speech could ever (every society has restrictions, whether its hate speech in the UK, or really weird kinds of porn in the US), but it means society will value open communication and seek to punish as little speech as possible. Particularly speech that can be seen as political and artistic.

The point I was trying to make is that free speech is the logical starting point.

You are not given the right to free speech more you have rights to types of speech taken away.

We are told we have the right to free speech but what they mean is very little is restricted.

Sonophos wrote:The point I was trying to make is that free speech is the logical starting point.

There are a lot of problems with the state of nature argument.

I would argue that freedom of speech isn't really about actually giving you the freedom to say what you want, so much as dressing up a list of types of speech you are allowed to engage in with pretty rhetoric.

But then, I'm unusually cynical.

Sonophos wrote:The point I was trying to make is that free speech is the logical starting point.

You are not given the right to free speech more you have rights to types of speech taken away.

We are told we have the right to free speech but what they mean is very little is restricted.

I'm not sure there's a distinction there that matters, to be honest.

The difference is that you loose what is a natural freedom through small incremental restrictions.

It is these that you have to watch for and fight against. The big stuff tends to be smoke and mirror distraction.

Sonophos wrote:The difference is that you loose what is a natural freedom through small incremental restrictions.

Again, the state of nature argument has tons of problems. In this instance the majority of them emanate from Wittgenstinian criticism.

dogma wrote:

Sonophos wrote:The difference is that you loose what is a natural freedom through small incremental restrictions.

Again, the state of nature argument has tons of problems. In this instance the majority of them emanate from Wittgenstinian criticism.

So you are saying the math just doesn't add up.

Sonophos wrote:The difference is that you loose what is a natural freedom through small incremental restrictions.

It is these that you have to watch for and fight against. The big stuff tends to be smoke and mirror distraction.

There was no base level from which those rights have been stripped away. There was no point where people were free to say everything that ought to be free to say, that we've since restricted.

Speach used to have far more controls on it.

Ahtman wrote:
So you are saying the math just doesn't add up.

Not the word math, anyway.

That depends on your starting point.

Even if you live in North Korea you can still say what you like when you like. The difference is someone will jump on you if they don't like it.
There isn't a law in the world that can STOP you from saying something but there are plenty that will kill you for what you have said.

The natural state (one where no laws apply) is freedom of speech.

Sonophos wrote:
There isn't a law in the world that can STOP you from saying something but there are plenty that will kill you for what you have said.

The natural state (one where no laws apply) is freedom of speech.

I see you've stumbled on the distinction between literal freedom, and practical freedom.

Literal freedom cannot be taken away, except by death, but it can be restricted in the sense of "You cannot say what you want without me hitting you in the stomach."

Similarly, the freedom of speech is basically "You can say what you want so far as the government is concerned."

Of course, government isn't an especially specific term (Welcome to English.), and doesn't necessarily apply to the state. Any force with the power to govern can deprive you of your freedom of speech given a set of conditions that involve you saying things that they object to. As a result, because humans arguably only exist in a communal sense, the state of nature need not be a case of free individuals, or anything for that matter; seeing as the state of nature is basically just the way things are.

I have never studied philosophy but that is indeed what I meant and very well put.

Any form of government that restricts the freedom of the individual further than physicallly delitarious action against other individuals should be resisted.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
:-p

The only time one is free to say absolutely anything without consequences is when one is completely alone, and then what is the point of speaking.

Sonophos wrote:That depends on your starting point.

Even if you live in North Korea you can still say what you like when you like. The difference is someone will jump on you if they don't like it.
There isn't a law in the world that can STOP you from saying something but there are plenty that will kill you for what you have said.

The natural state (one where no laws apply) is freedom of speech.

The natural state can't ignore social repercussions, because no human exists in a social situation where they can act as they please.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Sonophos wrote:I have never studied philosophy but that is indeed what I meant and very well put.

Any form of government that restricts the freedom of the individual further than physicallly delitarious action against other individuals should be resisted.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
:-p

There is no harm but physical harm? There should be no consequence for defamation?