OnPoint: On Freedom of Speech
326 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 10 11 12 13 14 Newer→ Last
-
or: John Key should be employed on a 90-day trial?
Actually, Natalie, we've been employing our legislators on three year fixed-term contracts for yonks... Wonder if anyone else would like their employment being contingent on a X-Factor style poll one Saturday. :)
-
Who are your ugly sexy men?
Marilyn Manson, Jack Nicholson 20 years ago, Iggy Pop, Mick Jagger, Alan Rickman, Gene Simmons...
I know, I'm a sick puppy. *shrug* -
What is most astounding about this whole thing is that a so called top award-winning 'journalist' didn't know the bio of the head of state.
But PLEASE consider - when we talk about free speech we keep speaking like we were raised under the US Constitution. Our legal model is very different.
MOST IMPORTANTLY when Americans discuss free speech they inherently mean the doctrine of prior restraint (look it up). In summary, there is no prior restraint on any speech act in the US. However, you are liable for the consequences of your speech act and that is why there is hate speech and discrimination protections for speech that is considered to have caused harm. We should get this in context. It is not speaking without any consequence.
-
Can there be such a thing as pure freedom?
Yes, animals have it. You may argue that this is not true but consider. You are free to do whatever you wish, as long as you are prepared to take the consequences.
Animals, being unaware of social mores, will do whatever they consider to be needed, humans, being aware of those mores, have a choice. If you feel the need to dispose of your elected, or imposed, rulers then you have that freedom. If those same leaders feel the need to dispose of you...
Ah Freedom. Such a misunderstood thing. -
Steve Barnes, in reply to
Are you still beating your wife?
Only at Scrabble.
-
Henry the radio star a hard sell
A more reputable outlet might have gone with::
“Henry the bigoted nong a hard sell”
Post your response…
This topic is closed.