Free Speech

[RWStanding]

Nobody can speak of virtue and vice - right and wrong - except within their own inbred philosophy
It has to be wondered if people in this country know what they mean by ‘free speech’. It is nonsense if there are no values attached to the term. This country needs to decide first whether it is an altruist democracy, to speak somewhat loosely. And not an anarchist democracy, let alone tyranny. We may allow speakers to extol an authoritarian state and society, in order to understand the opposition. But if that speaker believes in summary execution for those who criticise religion, or their version of it, then that is exceedingly dangerous. We may undermine democracy by random liberalism. The question is not about right and wrong but about the contradictory kinds of society people espouse. Globalisation is a present danger, except as global cooperative localism. International corporations need to be broken up.

[Age]

Nobody can speak of virtue and vice - right and wrong - except within their own inbred philosophy

But what happens IF, and WHEN, one speaks of A 'right' AND 'wrong', in which NO one DISAGREES WITH, and then SO EVERY one AGREES WITH and ACCEPTS, then would 'that' ALSO be CLASSED and CALLED 'one's own inbred philosophy'?

Or, are you under some sort of BELIEF that whenever absolutely ANY one, FOREVER MORE, speaks of 'right' AND 'wrong', then 'it' WILL ALWAYS be 'within one's OWN INBRED philosophy'?

It has to be wondered if people in this country know what they mean by ‘free speech’.

Does this 'wonder' of YOURS here now have absolutely ANY 'thing' AT ALL to do WITH your first sentence and CLAIM here?

If yes, then what would that be, EXACTLY?

What do you mean by, 'free speech'?

It is nonsense if there are no values attached to the term.

Does ANY one CLAIM that there ARE or ARE NO values attached to the term, 'free speech'?

This country needs to decide first whether it is an altruist democracy, to speak somewhat loosely.

What 'country' is 'that', EXACTLY?

AND, I think you will find that it is 'you', human beings, who ACTUALLY make decisions, and NOT 'countries' that do.

By the way what even IS a so-called 'altruist democracy', to you, EXACTLY?

And not an anarchist democracy, let alone tyranny.

AND, what IS a so-called 'anarchist democracy', to you, EXACTLY?

We may allow speakers to extol an authoritarian state and society, in order to understand the opposition. But if that speaker believes in summary execution for those who criticise religion, or their version of it, then that is exceedingly dangerous. We may undermine democracy by random liberalism. The question is not about right and wrong but about the contradictory kinds of society people espouse. Globalisation is a present danger, except as global cooperative localism. International corporations need to be broken up.

Well if 'you', people, created 'contradictory kinds of societies', then those type of 'societies' exist.

Otherwise there is the kind of society in which there is NO contradiction AT ALL. Which we could talk ABOUT, that is; IF ANY one IS INTERESTED.

[Iwannaplato]

Nobody can speak of virtue and vice - right and wrong - except within their own inbred philosophy
It has to be wondered if people in this country know what they mean by ‘free speech’. It is nonsense if there are no values attached to the term. This country needs to decide first whether it is an altruist democracy, to speak somewhat loosely. And not an anarchist democracy, let alone tyranny. We may allow speakers to extol an authoritarian state and society, in order to understand the opposition. But if that speaker believes in summary execution for those who criticise religion, or their version of it, then that is exceedingly dangerous. We may undermine democracy by random liberalism. The question is not about right and wrong but about the contradictory kinds of society people espouse. Globalisation is a present danger, except as global cooperative localism. International corporations need to be broken up.

I'm interested to see what the rest means in practice, but...finally! someone critical of globalization who focuses on corporations first.

[popeye1945]

Nobody can speak of virtue and vice - right and wrong - except within their own inbred philosophy
It has to be wondered if people in this country know what they mean by ‘free speech’. It is nonsense if there are no values attached to the term. This country needs to decide first whether it is an altruist democracy, to speak somewhat loosely. And not an anarchist democracy, let alone tyranny. We may allow speakers to extol an authoritarian state and society, in order to understand the opposition. But if that speaker believes in summary execution for those who criticize religion, or their version of it, then that is exceedingly dangerous. We may undermine democracy by random liberalism. The question is not about right and wrong but about the contradictory kinds of society people espouse. Globalization is a present danger, except as global cooperative localism. International corporations need to be broken up.

Tell that to an America determine on world domination. In today's shifting of world power, only the defeat of America will bring to a final end the colonial era. The world hates America for good reason, as the power elite/ the industrial military complex, it has no soul and has been the most brutal of masters. As to democracy in America that is none existent, that horse left the barn a long time ago. There is no free speech when your news is censored and corporate owned, the greatest evil I personally can think of.