When John Stuart Mill [19th century utilitarian] advocated this policy, Britain was not facing attacks from Wahhabis. Permitting 100% freedom of speech would mean alllowing Wahhabi terrorists like 'Abu Hamza' [Doctor Hook] to stay in the country, preach their Wahabbi ism with impunity and even receive free healthcare and benefits. This is obviously not something anyone wants to see. So is it time we dropped the idea of unconditional freedom of speech as being totally unrealistic, i.e. a pipe dream? Why should we allow the wahhabis to do as they please?
2007-09-15 04:14:44 · 8 answers · asked by Jerusalem Delivered 3 in Arts & Humanities ➔ Philosophy
Everything having to do with freedom is conditional, you may have the right to say what you want, but guess what, everyone else has the right to either agree or disagree with you, just as much as you have for saying what you want. Also, you might say something that can incriminate you or break a law, well, the consequences for that are your arrest and prosecution. Freedom isn't free, and it should not be taken for granted. Like life itself, you can go ahead and test fate, but watch out, because fate might win!
2007-09-15 08:21:21 · answer #1 · answered by Hot Coco Puff 7 · 6⤊ 0⤋
Actually I don't think we ever fully reached unconditional free speech, though there are those who would have us believe we did. Muzzles have been put on various politicians, journalists, writers, entertainers, and even the average Joe if he comes up with the wrong lines and a large following, and that's been happening for years.
If the muzzles don't work, a bullet will in the long run, maybe... though the power players have to be careful about making martyrs people can rally around, and it's better to ruin reputation and take away the will to continue.
Those who espouse concepts foreign to what we would have in our land are going to get free reign only up to the point that they pose a serious threat to the power players (whom I identify as large corporations; the money, honey...) at which point they will be bumped off, deported, debunked, or whatever else works best.
That's the way the world has been going around for a long time, as I've seen it. Not many people speak or do exactly as they please whenever they please for very long, most especially those who capture public attention and are not puppets to the powers that be, but threats instead.
2007-09-15 04:30:44 · answer #2 · answered by LK 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
we don't have unconditional loose speech. Incitement to racial and non secular hatred has been unlawful on account that thirty first January 2006, and the invoice banning it replaced into particularly proposed in accordance with the events of people like Abu Hamza.
2016-12-13 09:50:13 · answer #3 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
In America, free speech ends where the other person's nose or jaw begins, meaning it can be illegal to say something which may cause a criminal act. The problem is having enough motivated police to deal with it. Also chalk one point for paying for your own health insurance/doctor bills. That way your tax dollars are not used to treat your murderer
2007-09-15 04:23:45 · answer #4 · answered by L B 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
kudos to LJK, the powers that be, only allow us to believe that we have free speech and political freedom, as long as it conforms to their way of thinking. I'm not saying that what David Koresh was doing was right, but to my knowledge, no one single soul in Waco had harmed anyone, or threatened to harm anyone, before our government took action, albeit action without reason as to the results. But, believe this, if I or anyone could summon a large crowd, and started making remarks as to the overthrow of our government, even if through peaceful means, this government would not hesitate to begin its process of dis-crediting that person personally and in business or religious circles, monetary loss, personal and business threats to any alliance with you, and if all else fails, the elimination of you by various means. Money, and power, will never willingly give up their position, hell, just try to get any of them to share it, you'd still end up in prison at best.
I think our American forefathers had a tremendous insight into what an ideal government would be, though I've personally never experienced or even had a glimpse of what they wrote being put into practice
2007-09-15 07:41:38 · answer #5 · answered by graciouswolfe 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Actually London was rife with Terrorists in the 19th century.
The suicide bomber with an explosive vest was a relativly common occurance.
2007-09-15 04:31:31 · answer #6 · answered by Ring of Uranus 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
PROOF THAT iSLAM CANNOT handle liberty, democracy and freedom. they will abuse it every chance they get
on the other hand with the PC police here in the states we are fast approaching speech crime legislation and next thought crime legislation
2007-09-15 04:23:47 · answer #7 · answered by robbie_johansen 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
My freedom ends where your freedom begins.
2007-09-15 10:52:37 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋