Resonate your identity with Naseeb journals. Express your opinions, share your thoughts, post your writings and connect with like minded people through the power of expression.
Free Speech
Should free speech have limits - or should it be just that; free?
its all good SupaFly - i did laugh when i read it and was seriously hoping the tune would start playing as soon i did a mouse over your post - alas i dont think naseeb is set up for that ... and hey no apology necessary but its appreciated - stay with us dont even think about leaving -- we all suffer, at least i know i do also, from perceived nefarious attention disorder, narcissistic tendencies and other abnormalities -- so we all on the same boat -- dont jump off -- say what you want on our ship of freedom
peace out!
i apologise qalandarlal, i have some kind of nefarious attention disorder and couldt help myself. although you have to admit, it was funny. perhaps not.
im surprised by this village, its heartening to see some brown intelligencia. i may not therefore fit, but its heartening all the same.
...LOL tired of the tune constantly replayin in your head eh Superfly!! nice of you to think of sharing with us all... lets try it go on add the link so we can all enjoy ...
peace out brother!
free speech does not necessarily mean indecent speech. it can mean freedom of the expression of ideas - whether political, religious, scientific or moral.
the flipside of this is censorship. and leaving aside the 'indecent', censorship has been rife throughout history and is now. at the moment the UK is considering whether to censor the ability of people to express opinions 'exalting' terrorism or terrorist acts.
moreover, the historical construct/context has a huge influence: in the middle ages saying the earth was round was a heretical statement, that Jesus was the son of God, that there is a 'master' Aryan race, Gerry Adams being banned on tv and an actor reading his words etc
censorship and freedom are constantly evolving. as they should be? or are some things absolute - with no room or no need for further argument or thinking?
Shazia: certainly you are right - not everyone is capable of rational discussion - my suggestion was aimed more at the parents - instead of removing the kiddies from the big bad world i suggest talking it through ..
agreed, thats why i said decency is ill defined, if one attempts to be 'objective', and i agree, it is a subjective thing. that doesnt meet you dispense with it though. if theres conflict, somebody is elated and somebody is despondent.
how one decides on where to draw social lines of decency is entirely a different question. from reading the inaugural post in this thread, i assume thats not a question thaht is being posed here.
SUPERFLY: but what if my decency is not the same as your level of decency? It's an arbitary, subjective thing. And what about respect - the respect you have for someone else to exercise their view?
SATYA: I'm totally with you on this. I do think there is something which is more common in Muslims than in other people - where there is a complete lack of tolerance or acceptance that someone else can have an alternative point of view. It's a very absolutist position which confers right on the Muslim (quite like Jewish people thinking they are the 'chosen ones' actually) and wrong on the other.
I think that we also do not value an individual - instead we have notions of Ummah and community. I used to think this was a good thing - and there is a lot of good in it, I quite like the 'bortherhood and sisterhood' concept of fellow feeling etc - but I think it is also resonsible for an individual life not meaning much. E.g. 'honour' killings - where the act of an individual is somehow transmuted into a slight onto a community and a family's honour - and to avenge the honour of a family, the individual is killed.
ALIA: but can someone who has bigoted views divorce his views from his actions in the workplace? I don't know whether that is possible - his views would leak out in one way or another. Not necessarily through 'speech' per se but in other ways.
QALANDARLAL: that presupposes that someone can have a debate or rational discussion. With some people there is just no talking to. They're not interested in exchanging views
Comments on this journal
it's going to take more than that to get a rise out of me btw.
was just wondering whether your take on free speech was different when you were on the receiving end of the censorship? );
peace out!
im surprised by this village, its heartening to see some brown intelligencia. i may not therefore fit, but its heartening all the same.
in joyful jest always
peace'n out!
peace out brother!
censor the ability of people to express opinions 'exalting' terrorism or terrorist acts
Except for State Sponsored Terrorism of the USA et.al
absolute peace
absolute allah
there is no absolute distance
between allah and me or we
allah is free
Maybe, free speech laws are liberal so that the government can have more fun with their electronic surveillance?
I want some part of the Free Hearing racket.
the flipside of this is censorship. and leaving aside the 'indecent', censorship has been rife throughout history and is now. at the moment the UK is considering whether to censor the ability of people to express opinions 'exalting' terrorism or terrorist acts.
moreover, the historical construct/context has a huge influence: in the middle ages saying the earth was round was a heretical statement, that Jesus was the son of God, that there is a 'master' Aryan race, Gerry Adams being banned on tv and an actor reading his words etc
censorship and freedom are constantly evolving. as they should be? or are some things absolute - with no room or no need for further argument or thinking?
Superfly: yes i am an anarchist ...
how one decides on where to draw social lines of decency is entirely a different question. from reading the inaugural post in this thread, i assume thats not a question thaht is being posed here.
I think that we also do not value an individual - instead we have notions of Ummah and community. I used to think this was a good thing - and there is a lot of good in it, I quite like the 'bortherhood and sisterhood' concept of fellow feeling etc - but I think it is also resonsible for an individual life not meaning much. E.g. 'honour' killings - where the act of an individual is somehow transmuted into a slight onto a community and a family's honour - and to avenge the honour of a family, the individual is killed.
QALANDARLAL: that presupposes that someone can have a debate or rational discussion. With some people there is just no talking to. They're not interested in exchanging views