How do you see the right to freedom to communicate?

1. 49

   icvposted 8 years ago

   How do you see the right to freedom to communicate?

   replyreport
2. 60

   drshashivydyulaposted 8 years ago

   Right to freedom of communication or speech is a double edged knife. You can't say that you have total freedom of speech and at the say time you can.
   
   For instance a sensitive topic like religion, when people express their own views in the name of freedom of speech it may offend others and may protest against it. It is rather common sense than freedom of choice or freedom of thoughts.
   
   Freedom of speech means to respect everyone and yourself and express your views in a sophisticated way rather than just spilling the beans of one's ideology or belief.
   
   Thank you!

   replyreport
   1. 82

      AnnaMKBposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      And who gets to decide if something is "respect" or not? 
      And are you really suggesting that only people who can be "sophisticated" can have free speech?

      replyreport
   2. 49

      icvposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      But, I think the way of sophisticated talks may also misused. So we need proper legislation on what can be said and what can't.

      replyreport
   3. 82

      AnnaMKBposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      Which is another issue, entirely.  Legislation on speech should never curtail freedom of speech.  It should never have a chilling effect.  Especially when one "side" gets to say anything, but the other "side" is denied the same freedom.

      replyreport
3. 49

   bradmasterOCcalposted 8 years ago

   Freedom of speech is the Right to Say anything, as the SC said it was OK during the Vietnam War to say, "F*** the Draft".
   The only time that free speech is limited is when it becomes dangerous.
   As in the case, Of Yelling Fire in a crowded Movie Theater, when there is no fire.
   
   Freedom of Speech shouldn't be constrained, or chilled because people don't like what you have to say. That is the essence and reason for free speech is not to be silenced by anyone.
   
   Political Correctness is anti free speech, and it should be treated as such. It is all Politics, and none of it is Correct. PC is patently Unconstitutional and it has no place in the Land of the Free.
   
   Politeness is a social grace, but being Impolite is just rude. Being rude is not nice, but that is still part of free speech. Defamation, whether oral (Slander), or written (Libel) is still free speech, as Truth is a Complete Legal Defense. It is only illegal when it is not the truth. It is a civil matter and not a criminal act in and of itself.
   
   PC itself should be construed as being INcorrect, as it is used for Social Manipulation.

   replyreport
   1. 49

      icvposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      Thanks for your comment

      replyreport
4. 82

   AnnaMKBposted 8 years ago

   You're saying "freedom to communicate" rather than free speech.  Those are not necessarily the same, so it would be great if you could clarify.
   
   Assuming you mean "freedom of speech", this is our human right to be able to express our thoughts, no matter how unpopular, without fear of retribution.  This is something that's near and dear to my heart, because when my home was under siege by a union that chose to picket everywhere but the place of business, harass, intimidate and threaten me and my neighbours, while the police looked the other way and the media misrepresented us, freedom of speech was our only recourse.  We made what was happening to us public through a blog.  That lead to even more threats as the union demanded we remove the blog, since the truth made them look bad.  At the same time, they had no problem slandering people in public, so it was "freedom for me, not for thee."
   
   Like all human rights, there are times when we forfeit those rights through our own actions.  It's not freedom of speech when you know it's false (libel/defamation/etc).  It's not freedom of speech when you deliberately endanger others (encouraging people to kill, posting private addresses that endanger people's lives). 
   
   Human rights are messy things, but the whole point of them is that they are HUMAN rights, which we all have simply for existing, not civil rights, which are granted by government.  Voting is a hard fought for right, but it's not a human right, which is why we can have limits (citizens only, adults only).  The right to life is not trumped by someone else being inconvenienced by that life (abortion, euthanasia).
   
   We have the right to free speech, but there is no right to not be offended.

   replyreport
   1. 81

      tamarawilhiteposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      Agreed. Milo Yianapolis said it best "your feelings don't have rights, and your feelings don't trump my rights to speech".

      replyreport
   2. 49

      icvposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      You are focusing to what I asked. Thanks. Freedom to communicate different and should be the fundamental right and should not create burden on others. We often more or less punish prisoners by reducing this right.
      Thanks for sharing your view

      replyreport
5. 81

   tamarawilhiteposted 8 years ago

   All other freedoms depend on freedom of speech, so that you can organize groups with similar ideas and challenge the state when it is wrong.

   replyreport
   1. 49

      icvposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      Ya, that is what our democratic system is doing.

      replyreport
   2. 81

      tamarawilhiteposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      Social justice warriors are trying to deny freedom of speech, so they can openly control every other aspect of society without it being discussed.

      replyreport
6. 74

   manatita44posted 8 years ago

   Nothing is without good or bad, and I dare say that even some elements of communism has its usefulness. Communication is  one of the most effective tools in leadership; in the workforce; indeed so much springs from this in a positive way! But yes, it can also be a downer, and so called Freedom can create untold problems and suffering for human beings.

   replyreport
   1. 49

      icvposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      I agree with you manatita44

      replyreport
7. 91

   Nathanvilleposted 8 years ago

   In the European Union (EU) the right to freedom to communicate is specifically covered by Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights; the article also covers freedom of expression and freedom of speech. 
   
   However, under EU laws and British laws it is recognised that with the right to freedom to communicate comes responsibility.  The British law is very specific and makes it a Criminal Offence to make communication which is hateful, threatening, abusive, or insulting and which targets a person on account of disability, ethnic or national origin, nationality, race, religion, sexual orientation, or skin colour.
   
   In no way do EU or British laws restrict freedom to communicate or your right to freedom of speech, but they do help to ensure that you choose your words wisely so that you are less likely to incite hatred against vulnerable and minority groups who are less able to defend themselves.

   replyreport
   1. 49

      icvposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      Ya, That's great. Sometimes, I loved the democratic debates especially in universities like Oxford and Cambridge.

      replyreport