Jump to content

Free Speech or Speaking Freely

old man emu

By old man emu
in General Discussion

 Share

Recommended Posts

old man emu Grand Master

old man emu

Posted
Posted

Which is the  more important Right - the Right to Free Speech, or the Right to Speak Freely?  There is a difference.

 

Since they make such a big kurfuffle about it, I'll have to approach this from the direction that the USA takes.  The authors of the Bill of Rights felt so strongly about the right to free speech that, when it came time to amend the Constitution of the United States of America, it took the top spot. Journalism students learn the types of speech that are protected and those that are not. They read about the legal cases judged and enforced throughout the First Amendment’s long existence. And they learn why prior restraint of free speech was considered so dangerous.

 

The authors of the First Amendment made two assumptions. They assumed opinion would operate within the confines of truth – and that truth would act as an ethical imperative for all who exercised their right to speech. It is no coincidence that “reckless disregard for the truth” is the strict test for libel, the boundary of our right to speak. They also assumed that when people spoke, even if words were heated, those words would be exchanged in a civil manner. 

 

We demand our "Rights" in many areas, but often muzzle the cries for its balancing force, "Responsibility". Ultimately it is Responsibility that will determine whether the Right to Free Speech is being exercised as it should.  It will decide if speech is truthful and civil, or a foul collection of lies delivered drenched in hate.

 

On the other hand, the Right to Speak Freely is a Right that prevents the restraint of the expression of ideas and opinions. I recall the many times in the final series of Blackadder that Private Baldrick began his speech to his officer, Blackadder, with the words "Permission to speak, Sir". The same words often heard in military and quasi-military situations where the freely given thoughts of underlings are restrained by a strict hierarchical system. Speaking freely allows a person to escape from his "place" in the hierarchy.

 

I think that I would rather lay down my life to defend your Right to Speak Freely, despite my possibly disagreeing with what you say, than to defend your Right to Free Speech.

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1
facthunter Grand Master

facthunter

Posted
Posted

It Can't be seen to allow Lies (deliberate ones) to masquerade as FACTS. To gain advantage by deceit is FRAUD and is a crime and must remain so for our protection.. Goebells showed us how effective repeating lies can be. It was called PROPAGANDA. . Nev

  • Agree 3
old man emu Grand Master

old man emu

Posted
  • Author
Posted

In war, when the other guy tells porkies, it's malicious propaganda, but the porkies our side tells are "aiding the war effort"

 

But back to topic. You are all members of clubs or community groups. Ever notice that the people who stop coming to meetings and participating in the activities are the ones who don't get the chance to express their opinions because their right to speak freely is curtailed by those who run the show? It's a lesson I've been introduced to over the past few years, and I have found that by promoting the right to speak freely, more ideas and better solutions rise to the surface. Also those who are allowed to speak freely show much more enthusiasm about reaching the goals of the group, and they get more enjoyment from being in the group.

  • Like 2
  • Agree 2
red750 Grand Master

red750

Posted
Posted
50 minutes ago, old man emu said:

their right to speak freely is curtailed by those who run the show?

I know what you mean, OME. At the Men's Shed, there are those who know it all, or think they do. If you try to say something, they talk all over you as if you hadn't spoken, or weren't even there. and if you do get a word in, they'll tell you where you are wrong.

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1
facthunter Grand Master

facthunter

Posted
Posted (edited)

The "Chair" of any gathering has the responsibility of giving everyone who  wishes the right to speak. There are rules of debate and precedence of motions to apply.  When one side is without any more speakers it's usually time to PUT the motion. but the "CHAIR"  can decide otherwise if there's good reason.. Any RULING made by the chair can have a motion to disagree against it, moved by anyone entitled to be there.. IF carried by a majority it has effect immediately and doesn't mean the same as a NO CONFIDENCE motion at all. .  Plenty of chairmen use their power to silence opposition but to do it correctly/legally is not that simple  but there's plenty of bluff and posturing done.  Nev

Edited by facthunter
  • Agree 1
  • 3 months later...
Old Koreelah Grand Master

Old Koreelah

Posted
Posted

Allowing everyone to speak freely is the ideal, but history has shown that can lead to the mob being wipped into a destructive frenzy.
How to prevent this? Properly educate everyone, so they have the skills to detect crap when they hear it.

  • Like 2
  • Agree 1
facthunter Grand Master

facthunter

Posted
Posted

As FAKE as the facial suntan, Stolen election campaign, hair colour, rippling muscles and Property valuations.  Claps himself, doesn't READ books, Calls serving people (of which HE is Commander in Chief) "suckers & Losers". Just  the type  you need to LEAD the world's most Armed  Nation.  Nev

  • Winner 1
facthunter Grand Master

facthunter

Posted
Posted (edited)

Trump reckons he has a basket of surprises no one (but HIM) knows how good/ horrendous they are.  Like a kid's "Show and Tell " on steroids. Nev

Edited by facthunter
  • Like 1

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...