Anonymous is now targeting the Westboro Baptist Church
Anonymous vigilantes are a bigger threat to society as a whole than some cult. Whether it's limiting our freedom of speech or supporting/allowing vigilantes, it's a dangerous allowance.
[quote name='Luckless' timestamp='1355793319' post='5011873']
You are free do say and do as you please.
You are also free to suffer the consequences of your actions.
But you are also free to suffer the consequences of the consequences of others actions.
i.e. despite their monumental dickery, you don't have carte blanche to slap the shit out of the WBC (no matter how much they deserve it)
[/quote]
What exactly stops someone from trying? The law sure doesn't. It will punish them for doing so, but the reality is they're very much free to try.
I still remember having my mind blown as a kid when I realised the truth behind "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law"
I still remember having my mind blown as a kid when I realised the truth behind "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law"[/QUOTE]
8^. I'm impressed that your child-mind was blown. My adult mind is hardly igniting on that phrase !
...
It's interesting that we don't have free speech in Australia, none at all. And yet I don't feel censored, and I would say that Australia is pretty high on the ladder of nations who permit 'freedom of expression and speech', in that I'm not going to be put in jail for speaking my mind. I have personally stood outside a federal court in our nations capital and criticized the Deputy Chief Justice of the Family Court, and when the police came, you know what they said ... 'you'll have to do that across the road, because if you stay here, we can arrest you for trespass on commonwealth ground, because you've been asked to leave'.
So I would say that 'Freedom of Speech' is more cultural than legal. Which is fascinating to me because it's such a big deal in America, and Americans 'defend' their freedom of speech. And they think that if they lost their 'freedom of speech' that suddenly they would all lose their right to speak their mind, which isn't true. There is a counter-side to the idea, that even without freedom of speech, you can still speak as long as what you are saying isn't damaging to another party. That kind of protection can be dealt with under law without any regards to freedom of speech.
Constitutions become crystallized under law, nation by nation and they are very much put on a pedestal. I think all nations are guilty of it. But I think the notion that you are free to speak can come with it's own problems in that such a sweeping phrase can raise all sorts of unforeseen issues. And it's amazing how people can abuse sweeping powers to enact their own agendas.
So I would say that 'Freedom of Speech' is more cultural than legal. Which is fascinating to me because it's such a big deal in America, and Americans 'defend' their freedom of speech.
You have to look at our history and the political system that we came from to fully understand our defense of our freedoms. It was necessary at the time to codify them to prevent their loss at some point in time. We simply did not want our political system to devolve into that which we experienced under King George. The steps we took and the level in which it is ingrained in our system of laws and psyche ensure that.
Still, no level-headed citizen of the United States thinks that these freedoms are without limit.
How's that working out?
It was necessary at the time to codify them to prevent their loss at some point in time.
How's that working out?
[quote name='MarkS' timestamp='1355891881' post='5012328']
It was necessary at the time to codify them to prevent their loss at some point in time.
[/quote]
lol! Not as well as the framers would have liked...
This topic is closed to new replies.
Advertisement
Popular Topics
Advertisement
