Freedom of speech (Page 5)

Geoff: I hesitate to use the 'H' word, but... Hitler was democratically elected. And I don't think enough people today understand how he came to power to prevent it from ever happening again.

Those who ignore the lessons of history are doomed to repeat them.

StuckInTheSixties: Adolf was elected. That is true. But the environment of Hitler's "election" was extraordinary, to say the least.

So, by use of that example, are you suggesting that elections should be replaced by some other means of choosing a leader? I don't really comprehend the point you're trying to make. Or are you saying that when you elect someone, make damn sure you don't elect another f%$&#~' Adolf fw@y#y' Hitler? (laughs)

Anne aka Mags: Just to clarify how Aussie voting works...
The governing party provides the Prime Minister of the country. We do not elect that person separately.
Also, in our most recent federal election, the party that holds power is only holding it with the assistance of a few independent members of parliament. This is known as a minority government.
It is the same party that was already in government, but only just. It was a clear use of the ballot by the people of Australia that they were not happy with how things were.
Finally, I know that many people I know vote similarly to me in that they vote for one party in the House of Representatives and another in the Senate. Just to 'keep the bastards honest'. In my state of Victoria, we had the situation where the governing body ruled both houses and this had a detrimental affect on the State as a whole.
What was clear from this last federal election is that everyone had the opportunity to have their say.
In regards to whether or not you like any of the candidates, you can always do a 'donkey vote'. This is where additional information, drawings, etc are put on the ballot paper thus making it null and void and therefore, not counted with the rest.

Geoff: I would never suggest replacing any democratic systems.

The danger as I see it is in elected officials taking more power than they need or is safe to leave in the hands of any one person.

StuckInTheSixties: That was the concern of the framers of the US Constitution when they conceived (or got the idea from somewhere else, I'm not sure) the "three branches of government: Executive, Legislative and Judicial. The power is split up, and each branch is held in check by the other two.

In reality, it doesn't work perfectly, but it does work.

FogofWar: I never stated a line cannot be drawn; but that their has to be a line between freedom and security; or we end up with cases like the one you mentioned.

It is very difficult for a society to draw such a line; for as long as one's security is not infringed; then a person's freedoms should allow them to do just about anything….but what I define as infringing on my security; and what you define as infringing on your security differs.

To you this skit may have been completely non-offensive; and personally; I would agree. Such a skit does not promote any hatred towards black people whatsoever…but someone else might see it differently; and they will demand 'justice'. Hence it is hard to define such a line without infringing on someone's concepts.



"I ask, isn't that what democracy is all about? Making our voices heard, sometimes through media and especially through the ballot booths."

That's exactly what it's about…and why you cannot silence one person for speaking something you disagree with.

I agree on the voting topic. It is a responsibility to take part…and Canada does not have any law for that; that is why only 60% of the voting public turned up at the polls in the last election.

Heindelkin: Freedom of Speech to me is just the freedom to think out loud, it should be comman sense that humanity is given the right to just be...

darai450: Freedom of Speech gives us the legal right to say whatever we please. But it doesn't mean that our words don't have consequenses. We are free, legally, to express our opinons of hatred, racism, sexism etc, but these all have harsh, and potentially legal, consequenses. They can lose friends, jobs and give you a bad name.
In this way, there is no such thing as 'free' speech, with no consequenses, no boundaries, we even have to sensor our facebook posts for fear of who will read them and how they will be interpreted. It shows a real contrast between what is our legal right, and what is socially acceptable.

Wampum6: Thanks, Geoff, SITS, Fogo, and a few others for the dialogue. It should be helpful to a lot of Wire members, even applying the differences of their own country of experience. Each of us has room to learn, and being able to converse and learn together through differnces of opinion, AND some unanimity, is a real plus and a testament to Democracy at work, in my opinion. So, let's continue!

Malobear: There is a movie out about the last 35 years of Iranian rule. The Iranian leadership condemned the film. And when the Canadians planned to show it,this was the Iranian reaction.

Rex Murphy gave his opinion on all this.

More info on the movie is here.
http://www.wireclub.com/Forums/ViewTopic.aspx?ForumId=647368&ParentId=1164981&Replied=1

StuckInTheSixties: Yes, Malo. We know you're enthusiastic about that film. You've been raving about it all over Forums. But the release of that film really hasn't anything to do with the topic of this thread. The Iranian leadership squawking about it is REALLY stretching the concept of "freedom of speech." You're verging on spamming now with your using this thread to tout the film.

Malobear: "the release of that film really hasn't anything to do with the topic of this thread"
Your right SITS,it doesnt,but the reaction does. And whether you think it does is of course,your opinion.I dont think the CBC or Rex quite see it your way and the topic is freedom of speech.
Spamming,This is all I will post,unless you wish to continue.

StuckInTheSixties: If Iranian leaders' typical ranting "reaction" when criticized falls under the topic of "free speech," free speech as a topic could be a bottomless black hole.

thor1112010: Freedom of speech means no control of speech. Freedom of the press means no control of the press. They do not exist in your world. Freedom comes with responsibility. I have the right to bear arms, but I am responsible if I misuse them.