How far is too far for free speech?

[undo11]

p.s. but i dare say, they know they don't have to look any further than internally. they've already raised up an army on american soil, of the disadvantaged from all over the world.  easily could be a religious/race war. easily. and our rulers could just go take cruise ship vacations while we killed each other and have it pumped via satellite to bigscreen tvs on their cruise ships, a'la benghazi.

[Pimander]

what kind of human being, would spend their entire existence, formulating ways in which to bend people to the will of one guy? it's horrific.

Every world leader and their propaganda machines, especially the POTUS would.  It is called politics. 

[zorgon]

what kind of human being, would spend their entire existence, formulating ways in which to bend people to the will of one guy? it's horrific.

To understand THAT you would need to understand the Law of Sheep



I need sleep... so will elaborate tomorrow

[undo11]

To understand THAT you would need to understand the Law of Sheep



I need sleep... so will elaborate tomorrow

well if you read the book at the link i gave on the prior page, it suggests that rosicrucians are sheep as well, just cleverly disguised to them, so that they view it as some higher calling to the wisdom of the ages, which in reality is just the words and commands of whoever the current superior jesuit general happens to be.  lol

so yeah.  baaah to you too. 

p.s.  it was pimander who gave me the link, btw, so you can't accuse me of dredging it up from some fanatical evangelical website. hehe

[VillageIdiot]

No it is real enough but it is a two edged sword.

Take this forum for example...

You can freely post whatever you want... but since this is a PRIVATE forum, I have the right to delete anything I wish

If you can delete what I say then speech isn't really free. Truly free speech would mean my opinion would prevail no matter what.

[Pimander]

If you can delete what I say then speech isn't really free. Truly free speech would mean my opinion would prevail no matter what.

You can type what you like but you can't force us to publish it.  This is a publication in the eyes of the law.

[VillageIdiot]

You can type what you like but you can't force us to publish it.  This is a publication in the eyes of the law.

Yes, which reinforces my argument that there is no truly free speech.

[Wrabbit2000]

Yes, which reinforces my argument that there is no truly free speech.

Free speech as a RIGHT against the private sector has never existed in that way. You have never been able to demand you have your say within a private venue like this website..or any other for that matter. You can't even legally demand access, let alone what you may wish to say.

The reason is simple. You now have a conflict there. Your right to speech has come in direct conflict with the owners right to run his business as he sees fit. One side or the other must give, and accommodation is most reasonable to ask of the one speaking, since it is not protected. It is protected with any state or government entity (State since the right was incorporated a long time ago) but it just isn't a 'right' between two private individuals.

(Of course...SOME expression is finding they can force themselves upon a private venue by way of the court...but that is another thread entirely, and limited in scope)

[VillageIdiot]

Free speech as a RIGHT against the private sector has never existed in that way. You have never been able to demand you have your say within a private venue like this website..or any other for that matter. You can't even legally demand access, let alone what you may wish to say.

The reason is simple. You now have a conflict there. Your right to speech has come in direct conflict with the owners right to run his business as he sees fit. One side or the other must give, and accommodation is most reasonable to ask of the one speaking, since it is not protected. It is protected with any state or government entity (State since the right was incorporated a long time ago) but it just isn't a 'right' between two private individuals.

(Of course...SOME expression is finding they can force themselves upon a private venue by way of the court...but that is another thread entirely, and limited in scope)

This statement is just more proof that there is no truly free speech.

As an example, government doesn't provide for free speech either. You cannot speak freely about the President of the United States. If you make certain statements about him the SS will pounce on you.

I'm feeling kind of personally attacked here whether I should feel that way or not. To be clear, I'm just participating in this discussion, not asking for special privileges or complaining.

[The Matrix Traveller]

Well IF we get down to the Basics its like this !

FACT You can't 'Read' a BOOK if it 1st hasn't been Written ! 

<Undo> knows this better than anyone ... 


The 'Reader' behaves a bit like a 'sheep' by following or reading the Book of the Author !   


In other words, WHAT each of us experience, is 1st 'Written' as a Program, before we experience it.

ALL our 'options' and 'outcomes' are 'Written', before we entre the Experience.


<Undo> knows about ''Gaming Software'.

In 1st person,  2d or 3rd Person 'gaming software' all the 'options' and 'outcomes'
are determined within the boundaries of the 'software'.

So too, is our experiences in this Little universe.

After all, the Universe we see and experience, is just the 'Environmental Program' of very Sophisticated
gaming software of LIFE (NOT a physical source.)


So we are all 'SLAVES' of LIFE's 'Gaming Software'.   

So where is your/our Freedom.


We do have 'Freedom' but only in the boundaries of the 'Software'.   


See if one can Prove otherwise ?

[Wrabbit2000]

This statement is just more proof that there is no truly free speech.

As an example, government doesn't provide for free speech either. You cannot speak freely about the President of the United States. If you make certain statements about him the SS will pounce on you.

I'm feeling kind of personally attacked here whether I should feel that way or not. To be clear, I'm just participating in this discussion, not asking for special privileges or complaining.

I'm not sure I'd class the laws regarding deadly threat to the President or other members of the National Command Authority in the same way as any other speech. If you walk out and tell a store clerk he pissed you off and you'd like to kill him? You're likely going to be arrested for assault, if not terroristic threats these days. Same as yelling fire in a crowded theater or other incitement to riot or violence that is criminal and not protected.

Technically, it comes back to the same legal logic as the private website. Your right to speech has now violated my right to pursue life and happiness by creating a crisis with potential for injury over a nonexistent issue. (A fire that doesn't exist, for example). Hence..conflict between citizens who each have a right to assert, and favor going to the most representative of the public good. (The guy trying to watch a movie and mind his business wins over the guy trying to turn the quiet theater into a panic).

I suppose I won't dispute the idea that free speech has never existed, if by free we mean by what each of us would define in our own words and not necessarily what the nation and society defines it as, under the 1st amendment.

*BTW .. I hope I'm not causing any feelings of being pressured? I get a bit intense in debates, but toward subjects. Almost never personal, and when that finds an exception, there is never anything subtle to it. It's a good discussion.

[Pimander]

It's cool to disagree and argue passionately.  There is no point in debating if we all just agree about everything or never tell each other anything new.  Nobody should feel uncomfortable about it.

[zorgon]

This statement is just more proof that there is no truly free speech.

IF you define free speech as the ability to say anything you want WITHOUT CONSEQUENCE  then yes you are 100% correct

However must sane people  understand the political concept we call "Freedom of Speech" to mean "Say what you will so long as it doesn't infringe on the rights of another"

One has to remember that Newton's Law applies here... "For every action there is a reaction"

So if you scream out "Kill the President"  you should expect the reaction of being taken to a back room for "correction" 

[VillageIdiot]

IF you define free speech as the ability to say anything you want WITHOUT CONSEQUENCE  then yes you are 100% correct

However must sane people  understand the political concept we call "Freedom of Speech" to mean "Say what you will so long as it doesn't infringe on the rights of another"

One has to remember that Newton's Law applies here... "For every action there is a reaction"

So if you scream out "Kill the President"  you should expect the reaction of being taken to a back room for "correction" 

As the resident lunatic, I concede. 

[zorgon]

well if you read the book at the link i gave on the prior page, it suggests that rosicrucians are sheep as well, just cleverly disguised to them

Well there is a difference between sheep and educated followers.  And that difference is realized in the difference between a despot dictator and a benevolent leader


Take a small example for a minute. 

I wear a Crown... (as do several others in the Medieval recreation groups)

So WHY do people bow down to me and do my bidding? I have no power over them. I have no army to force them. So WHY do they choose to follow me?

The answer is simple. I have something they want... and to get that they are willing to pay the price. The price in this case is voluntary vassalage. In return they get to participate in cool events, have camp space and amenities supplied, get meals and get to have a lot of fun without having the responsibility.

And when one does good they get the added reward of a pretty piece of paper that says they did good, but more important, they get called up in front of their peers.

You have NO IDEA the power of that... being singled out in front of your peers

So in that small example the 'sheep' KNOW they are sheep, but they are willing to pay the price the shepherd asks

The DIFFERENCE between an Evil  Despot Dictator  and a Good Benevolent King is simply that the Dictator rules by force while the Good King rules by giving the sheep what they want.

The Church knows this to be true... that is why Christians are a flock    "The Lord is thy shepherd... though shall not want..."   It's not even hidden... even Jesus is called the Lamb

The Catholics tried scaring people into being sheep. Worked pretty good for a long time because they could send in an inquisitor to explain it to you if you had doubts



As for your Rosicrucian example.... yes ALL the members below the Imperator would in effect be "educated followers"  The difference again is that they KNOW they are followers and are willing to pay that price to gain the rewards.  As in my Medieval case with the Pretty Paper... they too have awards  called DEGREES

so that they view it as some higher calling to the wisdom of the ages, which in reality is just the words and commands of whoever the current superior jesuit general happens to be.  lol

This is spoken like a true uninitiated  person who reads stuff that may or may not have any basis in fact. Just because someone writes something does not make it true.  But in the end  until you walk a mile in the shoes, you cannot make a blanket statement as to what higher calling initiates may or may not have.   

You toss in "rosicrucian' at every opportunity to stir the pot  LOL  Just like any other religion or secret order, they too have their dark side and those that work for the light. The choice of which side to join is up to the initiate.

Generally an 'informed follower' will choose the LIGHT whereas a 'mindless sheep' will just hop onto any wagon that has a good speaker

Don't forget that Hitler became so popular because he had the GIFT to talk to people and make them TRHINK they were doing the right thing 


More when I get back.... I will cover the mechanics of this