Is Free Speech Worth Defending?

[Walker]

The kindling for burning Rome may lie in Franklin’s observation.

“Having few Artificial Wants, they have abundance of Leisure for Improvement by Conversation. Our laborious manner of Life compared with theirs, they esteem slavish and base; and the Learning on which we value ourselves; they regard as frivolous and useless.”
- “Remarks Concerning the Savages of North America” (1784).
Benjamin Franklin
https://founders.archives.gov/documents ... 41-02-0280

The “slavish” and “base” mind required for Western-Man’s industrious, ant-like nature observed in Franklin's time has led to a paradox, namely, people now have less of value to communicate, but can communicate with greater ease.

A culture without a written language, such as what Franklin observed, would place more value upon free speech.

Freedom of speech these days, and perhaps also in Franklin's time regarding the industrious ants, has been corrupted to mean, freedom to lie.

Truth is the responsibility that accompanies the God-given right of free speech.

Speaking only truth is a powerful, conscious, spiritual practice that teaches situational appropriateness* with the aim to strengthen the spirit (character), whereas corruption of this will crush the spirit, with predictable effects.

Ignore the practice and while ants may advance truth becomes unrecognizable.

Do you agree?


* Requires attentiveness to the situation's most important elements.

[Walker]

“I’m just giving you life, and you’re giving me life.”

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eyPZFi2b380

[Nick_A]

Walker, I agree that we talk too much about nothing and BS became an art form. But it is also true that many remain strangely silent when they should say something. They are also willing to sell their freedom for free speech for money.

Consider Houston Rockets general manager Daryl Morey's tweet in which he wrote: "Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong." All of a sudden we've learned that speech defending freedom and offending communist China is inappropriate if it costs a few bucks. I've been surprised to read so many comments by people who support condemning the use of free speech to defend freedom. Imagine people in Hong Kong fighting for freedom and we are afraid of free speech which supports freedom when dollars are threatened. Who will defend the needs of the Jews, the Armenians, and others when they are again threatened and their freedoms taken away? Only a few. It will cos too much for the majority to raise their voices as an expression of the value of freedom and a defense of free speech.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/daryl-more ... 019-10-08/

[Walker]

Walker, I agree that we talk too much about nothing and BS became an art form. But it is also true that many remain strangely silent when they should say something. They are also willing to sell their freedom for free speech for money.

Since no one can say everything all the time, then the freedom to speak must include the freedom to not speak. The responsibility of free thought is to pick the important from everything that can be said about any particular current situation. The consequence of free speech, or free silence, is an element of every relationship.

[Walker]

Consider Houston Rockets general manager Daryl Morey's tweet in which he wrote: "Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong." All of a sudden we've learned that speech defending freedom and offending communist China is inappropriate if it costs a few bucks. I've been surprised to read so many comments by people who support condemning the use of free speech to defend freedom. Imagine people in Hong Kong fighting for freedom and we are afraid of free speech which supports freedom when dollars are threatened. Who will defend the needs of the Jews, the Armenians, and others when they are again threatened and their freedoms taken away? Only a few. It will cos too much for the majority to raise their voices as an expression of the value of freedom and a defense of free speech.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/daryl-more ... 019-10-08/

Consider his situation.

What’s immediately important for the chicken on the chopping block will naturally differ from what’s immediately important for the free-range fowl.

[Nick_A]

Consider Houston Rockets general manager Daryl Morey's tweet in which he wrote: "Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong." All of a sudden we've learned that speech defending freedom and offending communist China is inappropriate if it costs a few bucks. I've been surprised to read so many comments by people who support condemning the use of free speech to defend freedom. Imagine people in Hong Kong fighting for freedom and we are afraid of free speech which supports freedom when dollars are threatened. Who will defend the needs of the Jews, the Armenians, and others when they are again threatened and their freedoms taken away? Only a few. It will cos too much for the majority to raise their voices as an expression of the value of freedom and a defense of free speech.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/daryl-more ... 019-10-08/

Consider his situation.

What’s immediately important for the chicken on the chopping block will naturally differ from what’s immediately important for the free-range fowl.

I know it is not PC to say but I admire the chicken on the block who is willing to raise their voice in support of those with their head on the block supporting freedom. It is a no no. Of course if anyone is raising their voice in support of gay rights, women's rights, minority rights and whatever else you can think of here it is supported . Since the people support statist slavery, freedom and free speech supporting freedom must be frowned on by the peace keepers.

“Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!” Patrick Henry

If a chicken on the block lives by this philosophy it just proves that people need more state approved education on how to use free speech..

[Walker]

I know it is not PC to say but I admire the chicken on the block who is willing to raise their voice in support of those with their head on the block supporting freedom. It is a no no. Of course if anyone is raising their voice in support of gay rights, women's rights, minority rights and whatever else you can think of here it is supported . Since the people support statist slavery, freedom and free speech supporting freedom must be frowned on by the peace keepers.

In a free speech environment folks have the right to frown and martyrs have a right to speak. The question is, are frowning folks a problem and why?

[jayjacobus]

I know it is not PC to say but I admire the chicken on the block who is willing to raise their voice in support of those with their head on the block supporting freedom. It is a no no. Of course if anyone is raising their voice in support of gay rights, women's rights, minority rights and whatever else you can think of here it is supported . Since the people support statist slavery, freedom and free speech supporting freedom must be frowned on by the peace keepers.

In a free speech environment folks have the right to frown and martyrs have a right to speak. The question is, are frowning folks a problem and why?

Sometimes, words, thoughts, ideas are implanted in our brains. An example might be a corporation that wants to implant an idea in their employees' minds. Let's say they want their employees to think about loyalty. So, the executives and managers use "loyalty" in many sentences and in many contexts. If the effort is successful, the employees pick up on the word and start thinking out loud about loyalty, It becomes the "watchword" of the month.

This thread has some watchwords that are meant to be implanted or else are just haphazard ideas that don't directly speak to freedom of speech.

The frowning people are not a problem but may indicate that they are confused by the speeches of others who seek to implant ideas in many different contexts.

Sometimes, we understand the intent of the speakers but at other times we are confused. Perhaps that is the intent.

[Walker]

This thread has some watchwords that are meant to be implanted or else are just haphazard ideas that don't directly speak to freedom of speech.

Freedom of expression is now equated to freedom of speech, and frowning both literally and metaphorically is one of many (self)expressions.

[Nick_A]

We have verified that society is devolving to the extent that psychological slavery is preferred over freedom. It is far easier to surrender the right to free speech and allow the government to tell you what to think and say since learning how to become able to value free speech requires too much effort.

It is the same with the question of gun rights. It is far easier to ignore the second amendment and force people to surrender their guns then it is to become able to value the purpose of guns in defense of freedom.

Freedom requires becoming able to objectively "value". It is too hard so people would prefer to become psychological slaves and let the government do it.

The question has been resolved. Statist slavery is preferred over the goal of freedom and even the awareness of what is necessary for people to remain free.. It is called progress

[Nick_A]

As Spock would say: fascinating. Statist slaves intent on furthering equality in slavery frown on people in Hong Kong fighting for freedom. They cannot be supported or encouraged.

There was a Trump rally tonight in Minneapolis. 20,000 people inside were practicing free speech in defense of America and free speech. At the end of the rally Antifa, a mindless collective that has arisen from the bowels of the Great Beast. was shown intimidating people outside in the attempt to deny free speech.

Curious how the experts in America will be intolerant of people supporting the freedom fighters in Hong Kong but will be tolerant of attempts at intimidation and the denial of free speech by Antifa at a Trump rally.

Obviously then, free speech as a concept is no longer considered worth defending. Free speech worthy of defense must be restricted to those with power. Might makes right.

[Walker]

As Spock would say: fascinating. Statist slaves intent on furthering equality in slavery frown on people in Hong Kong fighting for freedom. They cannot be supported or encouraged.

There was a Trump rally tonight in Minneapolis. 20,000 people inside were practicing free speech in defense of America and free speech. At the end of the rally Antifa, a mindless collective that has arisen from the bowels of the Great Beast. was shown intimidating people outside in the attempt to deny free speech.

Curious how the experts in America will be intolerant of people supporting the freedom fighters in Hong Kong but will be tolerant of attempts at intimidation and the denial of free speech by Antifa at a Trump rally.

Obviously then, free speech as a concept is no longer considered worth defending. Free speech worthy of defense must be restricted to those with power. Might makes right.

No matter the culture or government or time or place, everyone always has freedom of speech. Protection from the government punishing free speech is a conflict of interest for the government.

Antifa is actually Fa.

“If you live peacefully you will have no problem at all. You may be imprisoned because you refuse to join the army or shot because you refuse to fight – but that is not a problem; you will be shot. It is extraordinarily important to understand this.”
- Jiddu Krishnamurti
Freedom From The Known

[jayjacobus]

Is freedom to congregate an element of free speech? Or are the sheep just listening to a speaker? People who advocate assault weapons are exercising their free speech but are ignoring the safety of potential victims of gun violence. Assault weapons are not a constitutional issue because the constitution was written before there were assault weapons. The logic on one side is convoluted but the speech is protected.

We need walls and checkpoints wherever people congregate. That seems too confining and expensive but is there any other solutions when guns are among us? Keep the crazies out. There is no other way. Is there?

[Nick_A]

Walker

“If you live peacefully you will have no problem at all. You may be imprisoned because you refuse to join the army or shot because you refuse to fight – but that is not a problem; you will be shot. It is extraordinarily important to understand this.”
- Jiddu Krishnamurti
Freedom From The Known

Simone Weil said

“If Mr. Gandhi can protect his sister from rape through non-violent means, then I will be a pacifist.”

I'll stick with Simone on this one. I find nothing honorable about men who would not speak up and act against rape because of a belief in pacifism.

[Walker]

Walker

“If you live peacefully you will have no problem at all. You may be imprisoned because you refuse to join the army or shot because you refuse to fight – but that is not a problem; you will be shot. It is extraordinarily important to understand this.”
- Jiddu Krishnamurti
Freedom From The Known

Simone Weil said

“If Mr. Gandhi can protect his sister from rape through non-violent means, then I will be a pacifist.”

I'll stick with Simone on this one. I find nothing honorable about men who would not speak up and act against rape because of a belief in pacifism.

A more honest and thus honorable example of Krishnamurti’s insight would be Muhammad Ali’s boxing career getting shot to hell because of his passive resistance. No third-party sisters in the mix.

Here is Krishnamurti’s insight applied to your example:

If you live peacefully you will have no problem at all. You may be imprisoned because you personally avenged your sister’s rape, or shot because you killed the rapist – but that is not a problem; you will be shot. It is extraordinarily important to understand this.

In other words, to live peacefully within society you must accept the responsibility and thus the consequences of your actions (karma) as defined by that society. One of the responsibilities of living in the USofA is civil disobedience, as Thoreau discusses. Krishnamurti was a big fan of Thoreau, as was Gandhi.