 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Posted: |
Sep 28, 2023 - 7:52 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Hurdy Gurdy
(Member)
|
This shIt storm has kicked off in the UK...
https://news.sky.com/story/what-did-laurence-fox-say-about-ava-evans-on-gb-news-unacceptable-comments-in-full-and-reaction-to-his-suspension-12970858
And it begs the question, should people be allowed to say what they want, without recourse?
This Fox fella seems like a right beaut*
Just a quick read-up of him says it all.
The funny thing about this story, is that HE is bad mouthing the lady, in regards to attractiveness, when to my eyes, she looks quite nice, while he...well...even gay blokes wouldn't wanna sh@g him, I imagine.
Thoughts?
*Beaut is scouse for: An idiot. "You're a fuckin' beaut, now do one."
|
|
|
|
|
|
You should be able to say what you like but be ready/ accepting being called a knob( or whatever) by others. Bearing in mind that they could be the knob.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
True.
Also it would be different thing ripping into someone face to face, making them feel small, scared etc. On tv I think it's more.fair game. After all they are there we'll aware there is going to be disagreement.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There is a respectful way to say almost anything.
You just have to be intelligent enough to find the right words.
Also true. I got away with murder in work, over the years, because I knew how and what to say.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Sep 28, 2023 - 9:39 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
nuts_score
(Member)
|
Depending on your country of citizenship and their constitution(s), freedom of speech should be upheld so that the acting government (local, state, federal) cannot retaliate against you for speaking your mind. Of course there are also laws against your own ill-will when it comes to how far you can take your own freedom of speech but that is what justice systems are built for. Citizens really have to police themselves with this concept, as another citizen speaking an opinion or thought that is considered arrogant/untruthful/etc. has no real bearing on one's will or existence other than to be a temporary (or perhaps long term) nuisance.
"Unlimited" is too specific yet to vague of a term when it comes to our own freedom of speech or what retaliation could occur because of it. Some people utilize freedom of speech to harm and harass others, there shouldn't be any "limit" or anything on this. It should be dealt with. Some people utilize freedom of speech to conspire for unlawful or immoral activity, and there shouldn't be a "limit" on this. It should be dealt with.
Unfortunately we humans are complex beings with minds inspired by peer pressure and/or support, religious beliefs, entitlements, and so many other factors which influence our speech and beliefs. Yahweh or whatever celestial lawgiver had given to Moses on those tablets of stone 10 essential words to live by, yet failed to really comprehend what law to follow when it comes to your own vocalization. It's a real existential pickle.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If there is limitations on slagging people off, Kev, you could be in trouble lol
Btw Martin says he knows you don't like him as you rip into him every chance you get on here. Not his fault you didn't see the genius of Goodfellas n Casino. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Freedom of speech is perhaps the most important of all rights, because without freedom of speech, there is no freedom of thought, no way to communicate truthfully, precisely and accurately. And the only people who usually fear it are those who are afraid of the truth.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Sep 28, 2023 - 3:52 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
nuts_score
(Member)
|
"The state of nature has a law of nature to govern it, which obliges every one: and reason, which is that law, teaches all mankind, who will but consult it, that being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions… when his own preservation comes not in competition, ought he, as much as he can, to preserve the rest of mankind, and may not, unless it be to do justice on an offender, take away, or impair the life, or what tends to the preservation of the life, the liberty, health, limb, or goods of another."
From Two Treatises on Civil Government by John Locke
My favorite concepts found in the founding texts of America regard the influence from non-religious philosophers of that time, who at least had the foresight to understand that law is both a natural urge and a man-made conceit (and that people will not always follow the same religious beliefs). The natural given rights seemed to have always been "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness" so long as you were not born in a medieval, less enlightened time (or place, as much of humanity doesn't live in the luxury of the Western civilization we take for granted). The term "Liberty" is so multi-faceted but its root is in the Latin, "Liber," meaning "free." What is truly free in this life? Even today, there is a price to life and our own pursuits of happiness. Perhaps our own economic institutions, government, and lawfulness (or unlawfulness) destroyed what was once considered "Liberty."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
