Theres a Limit To 'Freedom'
June 6th 2007 04:14
What is it with people that make them think the concept of 'freedom of speach' gives them rights beyond others? Gives them the ability to condemn other defensless groups without reason simply because of prejudice? Would sitting around watching freedom of speach in action simply be a passive way of letting harm come to those who can't defend themselves?
Where can we just say 'no, not freedom of speach or expression, shut up, get lost'? When it is adult to adult ala KKK hates Black people? No, because black people are adults too and they can defend themselves, added to the fact people will support blacks against undue hate. Freedom of speach should have its line drawn if and when people start taking it upon themselves to promote hate and attacks against a group or entity that cannot defend itself.
So what is it with people who support at least passivley the abuse of children? It's disgusting in every sense of the word, if we have to negotiate our freedoms and morals then surely abuse of children takes a precedence over someones ability to express their views. If we could arm every child with a shot gun and the ability to kill pedophiles attempting to advance on them then by all means, obviously we can't which is why they need the extra level of protection. Which isn't exactly working if we allow people to fantasize and inevitably act on those fantasies.
Are we to find that someones ability to say 'I want to stick my cock into your seven year old daughter' is more important than protecting a child? Obviously teh next step from expressing ones views is acting in accordance to ones views. If a person has views as vile as this and in reality there is nothing stopping these views from taking effect as is aptly obvious then where are we to go and what are we to do?
We cannot defend someones right to speach if they speak against the very fundamentals of human decency in this case because in this case the victims are real and are being victimized and are suffering. If we were to look at the KKK, they can say all they want,they're week and pathetic, lost in their own little world, but go futher back, look at Hitler, he was dangerous and violent, he could turn his words into practice and he did.
Even if the speaker is not actively participating in the acts but rather passively encouraging it should we allow it? Perhaps the punishment for an advocate of pedophilia should not be as harsh as someone who actually involves in such actions though that doesn't mean advocating a crime is not a crime.
In the end it all comes down to the simple words, 'evil prevails because good men fail to act', and fail to act we do very well, not only do we not act we fool ourselves into thinking we are noble in our inaction.
Where can we just say 'no, not freedom of speach or expression, shut up, get lost'? When it is adult to adult ala KKK hates Black people? No, because black people are adults too and they can defend themselves, added to the fact people will support blacks against undue hate. Freedom of speach should have its line drawn if and when people start taking it upon themselves to promote hate and attacks against a group or entity that cannot defend itself.
So what is it with people who support at least passivley the abuse of children? It's disgusting in every sense of the word, if we have to negotiate our freedoms and morals then surely abuse of children takes a precedence over someones ability to express their views. If we could arm every child with a shot gun and the ability to kill pedophiles attempting to advance on them then by all means, obviously we can't which is why they need the extra level of protection. Which isn't exactly working if we allow people to fantasize and inevitably act on those fantasies.
Are we to find that someones ability to say 'I want to stick my cock into your seven year old daughter' is more important than protecting a child? Obviously teh next step from expressing ones views is acting in accordance to ones views. If a person has views as vile as this and in reality there is nothing stopping these views from taking effect as is aptly obvious then where are we to go and what are we to do?
We cannot defend someones right to speach if they speak against the very fundamentals of human decency in this case because in this case the victims are real and are being victimized and are suffering. If we were to look at the KKK, they can say all they want,they're week and pathetic, lost in their own little world, but go futher back, look at Hitler, he was dangerous and violent, he could turn his words into practice and he did.
Even if the speaker is not actively participating in the acts but rather passively encouraging it should we allow it? Perhaps the punishment for an advocate of pedophilia should not be as harsh as someone who actually involves in such actions though that doesn't mean advocating a crime is not a crime.
In the end it all comes down to the simple words, 'evil prevails because good men fail to act', and fail to act we do very well, not only do we not act we fool ourselves into thinking we are noble in our inaction.
| 50 |
| Vote |
Add To: 
subscribe to this blog
Comment by Annoyamouse
P.S. Uh... KKK they hardly exist today and organized crime by this group ceased in the 70s. Which is why they are a perfect example of a socially divergent group which was withered by a superior social system for free and open speech! Now a group that exist as a few thousand in a country with ~3000000 people. All they can do is make flaccid attempts to vie for power as their type fade and white driven segregation in US is just a funny joke on tv we all enjoy.
Comment by Ahmed
Video Gamer Kids
Little Green Foosballs
PolyKicks
The problem is, if someone advocates something that is inherintly bad such as having sex with children the next obvious step is to act on the words. Take Japan for example where pedophilia is higher than the rest of the world, hentai involving underage kids involved in sexual acts is pretty common there (the school girl image itself is pretty common in the porn industry in Japan). Somehow I think theres a cause and effect here.
Comment by Ahmed
Video Gamer Kids
Little Green Foosballs
PolyKicks
Comment by yoda76
The Tube Blog
Australian Anti-Sedition laws are the perfect example of what can happen when government tools think they know better.
Having said that, the point you raise is a very valid one.
You will probably find that most advocates of freedom of speech will take this view:
Quoted from this website.
Unfortunately, it would seem that there is very much a grey area there. e.g. You can't legally do much about someone saying "I would like to molest your child", but you can lock them up for saying "I am going to molest your child."
Either way, these statement would result in me tracking down the person in question and putting their lights out.
Ahmed, best summed up as "evil prevails because good men fail to act."
Good post. Even with the bad spelling
Comment by Ahmed
Video Gamer Kids
Little Green Foosballs
PolyKicks
Comment by Annoyamouse
Plus in the KKK vs Nazi thing, I know there are a huge number of differences but my simple mind would say one critical component was Freedom of Speech. Nazi party was against free speech and Germany was a freshly reborn country they still hadn't a solidly built foundation for their constitution. Woop, no constitutional liberties, the party rules.
USA was very fervent for their civil liberties even though the KKK did what they could to repress them, they got so far then Freedom of Speech bit them straight in the butt! The intermingled segrationalists/prohibitionis t/etc... were found to be much more corrupt than the people and cultures they sought to destroy. And the press published it, the people spoke out and the Intermingled Parties damages went so far.
The problem in many far eastern countries is: enforcement. The people don't have the same support for enforcement of crime against children as many of their country laws provide. Which points back to The Daily Tubes post.
If somethings wrong say something about it! Never, Never let any one stop you from speaking! Speech doesn't hurt. Sticks and Stones...
Comment by yoda76
The Tube Blog
Nicely said, Annoyamouse. Hard to do if your freedom to speak is limited by law.
If the Australian Government does something wrong, I can't speak too freely for fear of getting done for sedition. It's a joke.