Showing posts with label free speech. Show all posts
Showing posts with label free speech. Show all posts
Friday, July 15, 2011
When the "We" Makes an Insignificant "Me"
Ayn RandThe word "We" is as lime poured over men, which sets and hardens to stone, and crushes all beneath it, and that which is white and that which is black are lost equally in the grey of it. It is the word by which the depraved steal the virtue of the good, by which the weak steal the might of the strong, by which the fools steal the wisdom of the sages. Anthem, Chapter 11
All humans live amongst others, but their attitude about life and what makes for meaning is what makes for the differences. Some see the "We" as an attitude of "Comaradie", "Team", "Care", which make for "society", "company", and "organization". But such thinking can enable, as much as enoble, when individuals are not taking their own responsibilty for and about their life. Instead, they compromise, or ignore their own values so that others might not be "left out". But, in doing so, they loose their own distinctiveness. And soceity suffers for it.
The other night we watched a movie about a woman that pursued a Pulitzer by publishing a story about another mother in her child's school, who was a CIA agent. In the process, she went to jail for not revealing her source and lost her marriage. Her lawyer suggested that she could "go free" if only she would hold the "traitor" accountable. One wondered during the film why she didn't take his advice, but understood she was standing on the principle of "free speech"! She didn't want to set a precedent against "free speech".
Where do the lines lie in "free speech" versus "national security"? These are questions that concern Contitutional Law.
Should she have gained her freedom and hold the informer accountable? Or should she have held to her ultimate value for her journalism career, of "free speech"?
If this character had been "the concerned citizen", or the "soceital moralist", then she would have had a "focus" on the "we". This is all well and good, but there were more important issues in her mind to uphold for the nation and for the media, in general. Freedom of the Press is of pivotal import to maintaina free society!! So, I applaud her courage, determination and conviction!!!
Thursday, May 26, 2011
Free Speech and the State
Any limitation on free speech is wrong, because, historically, guess what, it's the most offensive free speech that has been the most important, the most valuable to moving society forward." - Arvin Vohra
This is an important issue for the State! It is only when we impose manner, or opinion into law, that things get oppressive. Parents, teachers, and community leaders impact children and young adults, which inevitably makes for a polite society or a crude and crass one!
This is an important issue for the State! It is only when we impose manner, or opinion into law, that things get oppressive. Parents, teachers, and community leaders impact children and young adults, which inevitably makes for a polite society or a crude and crass one!
Friday, October 8, 2010
Self-Interest Is Important to Acknowledge
Self-interest is an important value to acknowledge and affirm. Self-interest protects boundaries of personal values and concerns. If self-interest is not acknowledged, then there is a more likely occasion of "sin". Sin being defined by missing the mark of affirming both self and other.
Self interest has been given a bad "rap" in many religious groups, as self-interest is in opposition to God's purposes or plan. God's purposes and plans are understood in various ways. But, God's purposes and plans are usually understood as something superior to what the individual might want to pursue. Selfishness is the height of sin in this sense, because "God comes first". But,self-interest is not necessarily selfish. Selfish is a label given to those who may not choose to have the same value or ultimate goals. There is room in free societies to "walk away" if another's goals don't fall in line with yours. This is not selfish, but self awareness. And self-awareness is the first step toward becoming concerned with one's own personal goals, what one wants to do with their life.
Self-interest protects one's life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. This is an American's right by birth. And Americans use their liberty to choose their course and determine their life. American's are self-interested, in this way. Is there anything "wrong" with this?
Religion would say that one must deny oneself and take up their cross, meaning that self-interest would be in opposition to what "God wills". And that "will" is defined depending on the Christian group one is associated with. The social gospelers would think your life should be about the business of bringing in "God's Kingdom" through social justice. Their view is social and economic equality and political liberty. But, how is this different from the "secular human rights movement" or other forms of liberal organizations that are interested in bringing in Utopian dreams?
The conservative/evangelical would believe that self-interest would be in opposition to what they regard as most important, salvation. Salvation has many meanings depending on what denomination one asks. Some believe that being "born again" is an all important goal, while other believe that one must prove their faith through their life choices of "Kingdom building", etc.
I really believe that all of these people can be and are duped if they do not acknowledge and accept that one must be self-interested, if they do not want others to determine their course of action. Self-interest acknowledges one's values, personal goals, and personal life, which must be considered whenever one commits to anything. And negotiation of these aspects of personal concerns must be brought to the table early on, otherwise, one will be labelled as un-cooperative, rebellious, etc. We, in the West, would think it would be abhorrent for a man to pay the bride's family and take her away to become his wife, without any concern about the woman's personal choice. But, some religions/cultures think this is "right".
Some cultures believe that one doesn't have a right to freedom of speech if it subverts the government. But, these cultures are not free societies. This is what has happened over the years for political dissidents. Our Constitution guarantees that Americans have the right to free speech. But, recently, free speech has come under fire, because of religious or personal offenses. And individuals need to be honest and self-aware about why they are speaking out. Why are they doing what they are doing. Be self-aware and have valid reasons why one chooses to cause political "upheaval" and another's personal pain.
Self-interest makes sure that one is free to choose and is not doing what they do for approval, or to "fit in", but are doing what they do because they choose to do what they choose to do.These people are the only ones that are "free to choose" in the first place. Those that have come to understand themselves and what they will or will not do and what is of ultimate concern are those that are free "to be" and then, are free "to do".
And it is only free societies that allow such human development and choice.
Self interest has been given a bad "rap" in many religious groups, as self-interest is in opposition to God's purposes or plan. God's purposes and plans are understood in various ways. But, God's purposes and plans are usually understood as something superior to what the individual might want to pursue. Selfishness is the height of sin in this sense, because "God comes first". But,self-interest is not necessarily selfish. Selfish is a label given to those who may not choose to have the same value or ultimate goals. There is room in free societies to "walk away" if another's goals don't fall in line with yours. This is not selfish, but self awareness. And self-awareness is the first step toward becoming concerned with one's own personal goals, what one wants to do with their life.
Self-interest protects one's life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. This is an American's right by birth. And Americans use their liberty to choose their course and determine their life. American's are self-interested, in this way. Is there anything "wrong" with this?
Religion would say that one must deny oneself and take up their cross, meaning that self-interest would be in opposition to what "God wills". And that "will" is defined depending on the Christian group one is associated with. The social gospelers would think your life should be about the business of bringing in "God's Kingdom" through social justice. Their view is social and economic equality and political liberty. But, how is this different from the "secular human rights movement" or other forms of liberal organizations that are interested in bringing in Utopian dreams?
The conservative/evangelical would believe that self-interest would be in opposition to what they regard as most important, salvation. Salvation has many meanings depending on what denomination one asks. Some believe that being "born again" is an all important goal, while other believe that one must prove their faith through their life choices of "Kingdom building", etc.
I really believe that all of these people can be and are duped if they do not acknowledge and accept that one must be self-interested, if they do not want others to determine their course of action. Self-interest acknowledges one's values, personal goals, and personal life, which must be considered whenever one commits to anything. And negotiation of these aspects of personal concerns must be brought to the table early on, otherwise, one will be labelled as un-cooperative, rebellious, etc. We, in the West, would think it would be abhorrent for a man to pay the bride's family and take her away to become his wife, without any concern about the woman's personal choice. But, some religions/cultures think this is "right".
Some cultures believe that one doesn't have a right to freedom of speech if it subverts the government. But, these cultures are not free societies. This is what has happened over the years for political dissidents. Our Constitution guarantees that Americans have the right to free speech. But, recently, free speech has come under fire, because of religious or personal offenses. And individuals need to be honest and self-aware about why they are speaking out. Why are they doing what they are doing. Be self-aware and have valid reasons why one chooses to cause political "upheaval" and another's personal pain.
Self-interest makes sure that one is free to choose and is not doing what they do for approval, or to "fit in", but are doing what they do because they choose to do what they choose to do.These people are the only ones that are "free to choose" in the first place. Those that have come to understand themselves and what they will or will not do and what is of ultimate concern are those that are free "to be" and then, are free "to do".
And it is only free societies that allow such human development and choice.
Wednesday, October 6, 2010
John Stossel's Quote on Big Government
I love this quote!
"If the choice is between individuals using their freedom of speech hurtfully and an all-seeing Big Brother watching our words and thoughts, I know which society I'd rather live in. You can always ignore a racist. You can't escape from the government." ~ John Stossel
"If the choice is between individuals using their freedom of speech hurtfully and an all-seeing Big Brother watching our words and thoughts, I know which society I'd rather live in. You can always ignore a racist. You can't escape from the government." ~ John Stossel
Thursday, January 28, 2010
The Superbowl, Free Speech, and 'Political Correctness"
Free speech is again in question. It seems that some think that it is inappropriate to feature an ad taken out by "pro-lifers". The question posed to Palin tonight was; Was this appropriate? Was the Superbowl the place to feature a "controversial" ad. Palin, of course, was supportive and definite in her commitment to the right to "free speech".
I don't understand why this would be controversial in a free society where free speech is supposed to be valued. Why would it be offensive for a mother and son to tell their 'story' of "family"? This son was thankful that his mother decided to choose life for him. Why is this offensive?
I am wondering why conservatives always seem to suffer under the scrunty of liberal snubbery. Liberals can "get away" with indiscretions. I have often told my husband that I think it is because liberals don't hold to "higher standards" and conservatives do. So, when a conservative "fails" to meet their own standards, the hypocrisy is an obvious political bullseye.
On the other hand, when democrats promise big, but don't deliver, the American people are outraged. So, whether through the ideal idealism of the conservative, or the political hypocrisy of the liberal, both are becoming disgusting to the American public.
Not many believe that free speech is in danger, but political correctness is a short step to propaganda. And sometimes I wonder if it isn't propaganda, when it becomes clear that the politicians are not connected or caring about the people they are to represent. Free speech is NOT their right to act in the way they want, but to listen to those who are speaking. It is the people that need to be heard, while the politician listens and explains.
I'm listening, but there is little explaining.
I don't understand why this would be controversial in a free society where free speech is supposed to be valued. Why would it be offensive for a mother and son to tell their 'story' of "family"? This son was thankful that his mother decided to choose life for him. Why is this offensive?
I am wondering why conservatives always seem to suffer under the scrunty of liberal snubbery. Liberals can "get away" with indiscretions. I have often told my husband that I think it is because liberals don't hold to "higher standards" and conservatives do. So, when a conservative "fails" to meet their own standards, the hypocrisy is an obvious political bullseye.
On the other hand, when democrats promise big, but don't deliver, the American people are outraged. So, whether through the ideal idealism of the conservative, or the political hypocrisy of the liberal, both are becoming disgusting to the American public.
Not many believe that free speech is in danger, but political correctness is a short step to propaganda. And sometimes I wonder if it isn't propaganda, when it becomes clear that the politicians are not connected or caring about the people they are to represent. Free speech is NOT their right to act in the way they want, but to listen to those who are speaking. It is the people that need to be heard, while the politician listens and explains.
I'm listening, but there is little explaining.
Thursday, January 21, 2010
Free Speech of the Voter
We are to be a Representative Republic, Not a Corporately held STATE....
The Supreme Court ruled that corporations can have just as much leeway to give to campaigns as the individual....No problem with big corporations "buying" the campaign....
So, what does this mean? Does the little guy usually have as much a voice and does it motivate the American people to care about their government? Does it give Unions an unfair advantage? Won't this mean that money will "buy" the politician? And want that mean that those who have more money have more voice? Does it mean that the taxpayer will continue to buy out the risks of corporations?
After all, Emmanual said that the First Amendment was "over-rated"! WHAT???!!!
The Democrats want to buy out the free information to the American people by limiting our freedom of speech in the media and "protect" rights of the liberals in their agenda propaganda, by the "Fairness Act"...
No wonder they think the First Amendment is "over-rated"!!! Our Founder's knew better!
"They that can give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety. "
Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759
The Supreme Court ruled that corporations can have just as much leeway to give to campaigns as the individual....No problem with big corporations "buying" the campaign....
So, what does this mean? Does the little guy usually have as much a voice and does it motivate the American people to care about their government? Does it give Unions an unfair advantage? Won't this mean that money will "buy" the politician? And want that mean that those who have more money have more voice? Does it mean that the taxpayer will continue to buy out the risks of corporations?
After all, Emmanual said that the First Amendment was "over-rated"! WHAT???!!!
The Democrats want to buy out the free information to the American people by limiting our freedom of speech in the media and "protect" rights of the liberals in their agenda propaganda, by the "Fairness Act"...
No wonder they think the First Amendment is "over-rated"!!! Our Founder's knew better!
"They that can give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety. "
Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759
Free Speech Is in Danger...
I have written about Gert Wilders, a Dutch politician that is outspoken against Islam. Today it was reported that he is being tried for "hate speech"!
What did he say? He said that the Koran was like "Mein Kampf" and that if he was to be tried, then they should bring the Turkish Muslim that killed the Dutch film maker to be tried, as well.
What was the "crime" of the film-maker? He was making a film on Islam using the testimony and life of a courgeous "freed" Muslim woman. He called the film "Submission". And she tried to get him to make the film using a pseudonym, which he did not do. Should we be driven by fear, when it comes to making a documentary, telling the truth of a life?
Is this crazy or what? Is there 'One Special" and Priviledged religion nowadays? The U.N. has granted special rights over and above the Declaration of Human Rights. Islam should not be granted the right to kill someone for any reason. Killing should trump "religious freedom".
It seems we have things backwards today. We become so afraid of discrimination, that we inadvertly discriminate. And why? How can we un-do what has been done in the past? We can only promote more justice in the future by social norms, not legislation. The problem, is that many in the West do not hold religion as seriously as those in the East. And that is something that is taken seriously by political/religious ideologies. Just look at the Christian Church during its "reign of power".
Power corrupts, so there should be no priviledged race, religion, or sex. And we cannot protect from discrimination by "quotas".
What did he say? He said that the Koran was like "Mein Kampf" and that if he was to be tried, then they should bring the Turkish Muslim that killed the Dutch film maker to be tried, as well.
What was the "crime" of the film-maker? He was making a film on Islam using the testimony and life of a courgeous "freed" Muslim woman. He called the film "Submission". And she tried to get him to make the film using a pseudonym, which he did not do. Should we be driven by fear, when it comes to making a documentary, telling the truth of a life?
Is this crazy or what? Is there 'One Special" and Priviledged religion nowadays? The U.N. has granted special rights over and above the Declaration of Human Rights. Islam should not be granted the right to kill someone for any reason. Killing should trump "religious freedom".
It seems we have things backwards today. We become so afraid of discrimination, that we inadvertly discriminate. And why? How can we un-do what has been done in the past? We can only promote more justice in the future by social norms, not legislation. The problem, is that many in the West do not hold religion as seriously as those in the East. And that is something that is taken seriously by political/religious ideologies. Just look at the Christian Church during its "reign of power".
Power corrupts, so there should be no priviledged race, religion, or sex. And we cannot protect from discrimination by "quotas".
Friday, July 24, 2009
Today's Thoughts on 'Free Speech"
This morning while looking over a blog I follow, I noticed a response that was really an attack. As I read the response, I couldn't help but think that this person's opinion was a personal attack hidden behind the agenda of inhibiting "free speech". I was bewildered.
Free speech is a right in our country, as it is garuanteed in our Bill of Rights. It holds government accountable through investigative reporting in our news agencies. Those countries that do not allow freedom of speech (opinion) and propagate an agenda through the media are not free societies! We must stand for "free speech".
One aspect of "free speech" that has been questioned is: what constitutes discourtesy, "slander", and undermines our civil discourse? Much has been written and discussed about the issue. But, without full disclosure of information, the public is limited in their ability to judge, discriminate and assess what they believe. This is tragic, as it leaves those in power not just unaccountable, but enlarges their power base. Those who hold the reigns of leadership understand the power of the media, rhetoric, and "image".
While "image" and rhetoric can appeal to the public on a broad base and give a "good feeling" about our leaders, "image", "power", and "rhetoric" are not what leadership is about. Leadership is an ability to see the future with hope, not just for self-interest, but for the public's welfare. And good leaders know how to inspire, encourage, and equip those around them to be "all they can be", as well as listen and learn from others, themselves. Many leaders do not have the ability to listen, to learn, to grow, through learning about who or what they want to change. This is a tragedy, not just for the particular leader, but also for the leader's impact and outcomes.
This morning's encounter with another's dispute over "free speech" got me thinking about how much I embrace forthrightness, frankness, honesty, and courage to speak as one sees it. This is why I like to read and hear from the atheists or agnostic, as they arent' afraid of 'hurting others" so much as trying to grapple with the questions, and give answers about the world.
Those who adhere to learning in all areas are those that will be more likely open to hear another. It is only those whose eyes are focused on some "god-given" knowledge that supercedes any other knowledge that are dangerous, because they will not listen or learn from other arenas.
The West fights not just to preserve our right to free speech, which is enough, but our way of life, where each individual has an opportunity to explore, enlarge and grow in any direction, within the boundaries of law. I hope that we do not give up that right due to a tepid commitment to our government's values. This is why our conuntry is divided today. Those who are not tepid are passionate about protecting our values of freedom and individuality, but we disagree about how to go about it. We see the "enemy" differently. Some of us see the human enemy, whereas, others see the "ideology" that must be fought. We are in a culture war, at home and abroad. We must resolve our differences in pritotizing the value of freedom, so that we can maintain and uphold justice, otherwise, we doom all of us to be under the dominion of unjust men in the name of "god". And injustice will prevail upon the individual, as well as society.
Free speech is a right in our country, as it is garuanteed in our Bill of Rights. It holds government accountable through investigative reporting in our news agencies. Those countries that do not allow freedom of speech (opinion) and propagate an agenda through the media are not free societies! We must stand for "free speech".
One aspect of "free speech" that has been questioned is: what constitutes discourtesy, "slander", and undermines our civil discourse? Much has been written and discussed about the issue. But, without full disclosure of information, the public is limited in their ability to judge, discriminate and assess what they believe. This is tragic, as it leaves those in power not just unaccountable, but enlarges their power base. Those who hold the reigns of leadership understand the power of the media, rhetoric, and "image".
While "image" and rhetoric can appeal to the public on a broad base and give a "good feeling" about our leaders, "image", "power", and "rhetoric" are not what leadership is about. Leadership is an ability to see the future with hope, not just for self-interest, but for the public's welfare. And good leaders know how to inspire, encourage, and equip those around them to be "all they can be", as well as listen and learn from others, themselves. Many leaders do not have the ability to listen, to learn, to grow, through learning about who or what they want to change. This is a tragedy, not just for the particular leader, but also for the leader's impact and outcomes.
This morning's encounter with another's dispute over "free speech" got me thinking about how much I embrace forthrightness, frankness, honesty, and courage to speak as one sees it. This is why I like to read and hear from the atheists or agnostic, as they arent' afraid of 'hurting others" so much as trying to grapple with the questions, and give answers about the world.
Those who adhere to learning in all areas are those that will be more likely open to hear another. It is only those whose eyes are focused on some "god-given" knowledge that supercedes any other knowledge that are dangerous, because they will not listen or learn from other arenas.
The West fights not just to preserve our right to free speech, which is enough, but our way of life, where each individual has an opportunity to explore, enlarge and grow in any direction, within the boundaries of law. I hope that we do not give up that right due to a tepid commitment to our government's values. This is why our conuntry is divided today. Those who are not tepid are passionate about protecting our values of freedom and individuality, but we disagree about how to go about it. We see the "enemy" differently. Some of us see the human enemy, whereas, others see the "ideology" that must be fought. We are in a culture war, at home and abroad. We must resolve our differences in pritotizing the value of freedom, so that we can maintain and uphold justice, otherwise, we doom all of us to be under the dominion of unjust men in the name of "god". And injustice will prevail upon the individual, as well as society.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
