"A democratic government rules within limits set by constitutional law and citizens’ rights."
https://byjus.com/ias-questions/what-ar … democracy/
Not in my view. Freedom to do whatever the heck you want is actually Liberty. Freedoms are in essence of an authority either expanding or limiting Liberty. We have freedoms through some authority/institution be that a monarchy or a representative republic through democracy as the U.S. It is through the institute that governs the people. I can live with that and there is no need to try to convince otherwise.
"Freedom to do whatever the heck you want is actually Liberty.
Freedoms are in essence of an authority either expanding or limiting Liberty.
We have freedoms through some authority/institution be that a monarchy or a representative republic through democracy as the U.S.
It is through the institute that governs the people.
I can live with that and there is no need to try to convince otherwise."
Interesting. Thank you for your response.
Do citizens have the right to abuse freedom of speech?
To murder their offspring?
To form monopolies?
Monopolies should not be allowed to form
because of the imbalance of power they create.
Citizens should not be allowed to abuse freedom of speech
because of the lies, slander and misery it causes.
Birthing people should not be allowed, encouraged or inspired to murder the human embryos growing toward the fullness of human life within them. I would add that freezing embryos should not be allowed either, due to the fact that we are tampering with the soul. Who knows what happens to the soul (which joined the union of the egg and sperm with the flash of light occurring at the time of conception.) Is it (the soul) frozen for years, as it waits for it's desired destiny?
Democracy, one can conclude, (freedom of choices) is for the sake of some good ... not some bad.
https://www.fastcompany.com/40432885/it … X6m276Qmac
"It is through the institute that governs the people. I can live with that and there is no need to try to convince otherwise."
What did you mean by "THAT?"
And did you mean, convince me (you) or convince anyone at all?
(and yes, thank you for the direction.)
we are given choices for some good.
not some bad.
.... not for what is detrimental, destructive and against life itself.
A king makes all the decisions in a monarchy, but in a democracy, the people do.
It is understood that the people will know and choose what is best for themselves.
Therefore, education and religious beliefs are very important in a democracy.
The quality of the people matters.
If we do not choose what is best for ourselves, what does that say about the quality of the people?
"Selling fetal body parts – or any body parts – is against federal law,
but Planned Parenthood said it makes no profit."
OH REALLY? Breaking boundaries much?
"'In some instances, actual costs, such as the cost to transport tissue to leading research centers, are reimbursed, which is standard across the medical field,'" the group said.
"Another part of the video also raised concerns for Caplan. Nucatola talks about doctors performing abortions in which ultrasound is used to ascertain the best location to grab the fetus with forceps.
“'We’ve been very good at getting heart, lung, liver because we know that, I’m not going to crush that part,' she says."
https://www.cnn.com/2015/07/15/health/p … index.html
"Article 19 of the UDHR states that "everyone shall have the right to hold opinions without interference" and "everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive, and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice".
The version of Article 19 in the ICCPR later amends this by stating that the exercise of these rights carries "special duties and responsibilities" and may therefore be subject to certain restrictions when necessary for respect of the rights or reputation of others, the protection of national security, public order, public health or morals.
Freedom of speech and expression, therefore, may not be recognized as being absolute, and common limitations or boundaries to freedom of speech relate to libel, slander, obscenity, pornography, sedition, incitement, fighting words, classified information, copyright violation, trade secrets, food labeling, non-disclosure agreements, the right to privacy, dignity, the right to be forgotten, public security, and perjury.
Justifications for such include the harm principle, proposed by John Stuart Mill in On Liberty, which suggests that 'the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others'.
The idea of the 'offense principle' is also used to justify speech limitations, describing the restriction on forms of expression deemed offensive to society, considering factors such as extent, duration, motives of the speaker, and ease with which it could be avoided.
With the evolution of the digital age, application of freedom of speech becomes more controversial as new means of communication and restrictions arise, for example, the Golden Shield Project, an initiative by Chinese government's Ministry of Public Security that filters potentially unfavourable data from foreign countries." ETC.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internati … cal_Rights
https://www.un.org/en/udhrbook/pdf/udhr … en_web.pdf
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights:
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights:
"Freedom of speech is understood to be fundamental in a democracy. The norms on limiting freedom of expression mean that public debate may not be completely suppressed even in times of emergency. One of the most notable proponents of the link between freedom of speech and democracy is Alexander Meiklejohn. He has argued that the concept of democracy is that of self-government by the people. For such a system to work, an informed electorate is necessary. In order to be appropriately knowledgeable, there must be no constraints on the free flow of information and ideas. According to Meiklejohn, democracy will not be true to its essential ideal if those in power can manipulate the electorate by withholding information and stifling criticism. Meiklejohn acknowledges that the desire to manipulate opinion can stem from the motive of seeking to benefit society. However, he argues, choosing manipulation negates, in its means, the democratic ideal."
https://www.lawfareblog.com/what-alexan … el-culture
CAN of WORMS, I am beginning to comprehend.
The US Constitution vs The Liberal World Order ?
by Debbie Carey 9 years ago
What one freedom (in America) do you consider to be the MOST important?As Americans we have many "freedoms" and rights. Which do you consider to me the most important either in your own life or overall, in general?
by Diana Grant 9 years ago
Should extremists be gagged, or should freedom of speech be allowed?When an English soldier was murdered in the streets of Woolwich, London, on 22nd May 2013, video film on various news stations, including but not limited to the BBC, showed substantial footage of Michael Adeboloja (who grew...
by LoliHey 6 years ago
Doesn't freedom of speech mean that there are no consequences?Lately we hear about people losing their jobs for stuff they tweet and post. People say, "Well, freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences." I beg to differ, though. You're supposed to be able...
by RealityTalk 9 years ago
Is freedom of speech compromised in America today?It appears difficult to publish articles pertaining to racism, unless the racist in question is white skinned. It also appears difficult to publish articles pertaining to same-sex marriage if the article is anti-same-sex marriage; even if the...
by Tessa Schlesinger 6 years ago
Why are Christians permitted by law to prosyletize on the streets? Shouldn't it be made illegal?Religious organizations do not pay taxes so they should not be permitted the use of the streets for their 'work.' In addition, as much as there is freedom of speech, there is also the freedom to not hear...
by Readmikenow 13 months ago
I have read what Whoopie Goldberg said on the view. I watched what she said on the Stephen Colbert show. I can honestly say I probably hold political and social views that are complete opposite of Whoopie Goldberg.Do I think she should be suspended for what she said? My heartfelt...
Copyright © 2023 The Arena Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers on this website. HubPages® is a registered trademark of The Arena Platform, Inc. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. The Arena Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers to this website may receive compensation for some links to products and services on this website.
Copyright © 2023 Maven Media Brands, LLC and respective owners.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|