Film Score Monthly
FSM HOME MESSAGE BOARD FSM CDs FSM ONLINE RESOURCES FUN STUFF ABOUT US  SEARCH FSM   
Search Terms: 
Search Within:   search tips 
You must log in or register to post.
  Go to page:    
 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."

 
 
 Posted:   Sep 28, 2023 - 4:14 PM   
 By:   Bob DiMucci   (Member)

So defamation or conspiring to commit a crime, which require speech, are not prosecutable?


If you conspire to commit a crime, it's the conspiracy itself (the planning with others) that is prosecutable, not the speech or the writing that facilitated the planning. Perhaps you think that's a distinction without a difference, but such distinctions are common in law.

As for defamation, that is not prosecutable against an individual by the state (at least in modern times). Individuals may have causes of action against each other civilly for libel and slander.

 
 
 Posted:   Sep 28, 2023 - 4:25 PM   
 By:   Last Child   (Member)

Is laughing free speech? And do animals have rights? Because...

 
 Posted:   Sep 28, 2023 - 4:55 PM   
 By:   Ron Pulliam   (Member)

We live in an anything goes society these days...lots of stupid things get said by otherwise smart people, many of who are fed up with the status quo of PC-ness.

I like Laurence Fox as an actor. It's likely I wouldn't much care for him as a person, but maybe I would if I knew where he is coming from.

In the cold light of day, he was unapologetic about his comments.

I can think of one or two public figures who run their yaps and make fools of themselves at every turn who merit such comments. I come from an era where we are taught to say nothing if we have nothing nice to say. Fox is a couple of generations "newer" than I am.

 
 Posted:   Sep 28, 2023 - 5:53 PM   
 By:   Solium   (Member)

Free speech is important, but it should never be confused with some sort of God-given right.


That's exactly what the framers of the U.S. Declaration of Independence and Constitution felt about free speech--that it was a God-given right that no government created by men had the right to infringe upon.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

One of the cornerstones of "Liberty" is the right of free speech, which is why the drafters of the Constitution included free speech in the first of that document's "Bill of Rights": "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech..."


They kinda blew it with the "all men" part.

 
 Posted:   Sep 28, 2023 - 6:08 PM   
 By:   Solium   (Member)

Just to clarify the founding fathers knew the threat of being prosecuted by the state for speaking out or challenging the state. Freedom to challenge the state, its leaders and opposition without fear of jail, torture or death were the primary reason behind it.

 
 Posted:   Sep 28, 2023 - 6:51 PM   
 By:   nuts_score   (Member)

I had a peculiar thought about freedom of speech being a so-called "God-given right." If it was, why do the ten biblical principles largely deny it? Why, historically, has thought or word against the Abrahamic God been considered blasphemous, criminal, or simply immoral? Doesn't seem to be much freedom at all in that regard.

Food for my thoughts, at the very least.

 
 Posted:   Sep 28, 2023 - 6:57 PM   
 By:   Solium   (Member)

I had a peculiar thought about freedom of speech being a so-called "God-given right." If it was, why do the ten biblical principles largely deny it? Why, historically, has thought or word against the Abrahamic God been considered blasphemous, criminal, or simply immoral? Doesn't seem to be much freedom at all in that regard.

Food for my thoughts, at the very least.


Because religion is authoritarian. The Constitution and Bill Of Rights have nothing to do with religion of any kind!

 
 
 Posted:   Sep 28, 2023 - 9:22 PM   
 By:   Bob DiMucci   (Member)

Because religion is authoritarian. The Constitution and Bill Of Rights have nothing to do with religion of any kind!


Other than allowing everyone to worship according to the religion of their choice...even an authoritarian one.

 
 
 Posted:   Sep 28, 2023 - 9:24 PM   
 By:   Bob DiMucci   (Member)

They kinda blew it with the "all men" part.


And we've been paying for it ever since. But where would we be if they had started with language less inclusive?

 
 Posted:   Sep 28, 2023 - 11:48 PM   
 By:   Nicolai P. Zwar   (Member)

So defamation or conspiring to commit a crime, which require speech, are not prosecutable?

With "free speech" is meant "freedom of expression". Of course it is illegal to defame someone, to yell "fire" in a crowded theater, or to threaten someone or to commit crimes. "Free speech" never meant that crimes and the instigation to crimes cannot be persecuted.

 
 
 Posted:   Sep 29, 2023 - 2:25 AM   
 By:   Hurdy Gurdy   (Member)

https://news.sky.com/story/laurence-fox-apologises-to-ava-evans-over-comments-on-gb-news-12971909

Well, well.
After categorically stating that he WOULD NOT EVER apologise to The Mob, that sly old Fox has completed a U-turn and done just that.
I guess he doesn't REALLY mean what he says roll eyes

 
 
 Posted:   Sep 29, 2023 - 3:45 AM   
 By:   Rick15   (Member)

Freedom (of speech) isn’t free
It costs folks like you and me
And if we don't all chip in
We'll never pay that bill

 
 
 Posted:   Sep 29, 2023 - 4:06 AM   
 By:   Hurdy Gurdy   (Member)

Haha!
Nice one Rick (derpa derp).

 
 Posted:   Sep 29, 2023 - 4:20 AM   
 By:   Solium   (Member)

Because religion is authoritarian. The Constitution and Bill Of Rights have nothing to do with religion of any kind!


Other than allowing everyone to worship according to the religion of their choice...even an authoritarian one.


And freedom from religion and religious prosecution.

 
 Posted:   Sep 29, 2023 - 5:14 AM   
 By:   Nicolai P. Zwar   (Member)

Because religion is authoritarian. The Constitution and Bill Of Rights have nothing to do with religion of any kind!


Other than allowing everyone to worship according to the religion of their choice...even an authoritarian one.


And freedom from religion and religious prosecution.


Yes, I thoroughly believe these are all very, very important rights, rights that we sometimes take to easily for granted, when for the majority of people across time and space (as in other countries), such rights just did not exist. I believe everybody should be able to believe (and freely express the belief) in their religion of choice (which of course includes no particular religion at all). I am a steadfast proponent of both freedom of speech and freedom of (and of course from) religion, but for obvious reasons, this board is not the most suitable to discuss these subject matters, since they are "politics" and "religion". (Subjects I personally certainly don't mind discussing in appropriate contexts and never did, but these seem to have led to acrimony in the past on this board, as they often do on any discussion forum.)

 
 
 Posted:   Sep 29, 2023 - 5:27 AM   
 By:   Ado   (Member)

The intermixing of supposed 'rights' and nations and 'freedoms' with religion will be the eventual undoing, of at least the US. God did not create the US, or bless it especially, or make us have a better nation, or 'give' us more freedoms, or the right to say anything, or own anything like a gun. The association of these things with 'god' is toxic, and artificial, and wrong. And yes, I am talking about my own mother.

 
 Posted:   Sep 29, 2023 - 6:10 AM   
 By:   DavidCorkum   (Member)

The freedom to think and speak as you like is a given. But I don't understand why the concept of "truth" isn't protected. Knowingly lying for profit, exploitation or to cause harm to others should be a chargeable crime. Any public statement should have to be verifiable by law for the protection of the public. It shouldn't require lawsuits, it should be necessary up front. Of course, that would devastate the advertising industry and politics.

 
 Posted:   Sep 29, 2023 - 6:13 AM   
 By:   Solium   (Member)

The freedom to think and speak as you like is a given. But I don't understand why the concept of "truth" isn't protected. Knowingly lying for profit, exploitation or to cause harm to others should be a chargeable crime. Any public statement should have to be verifiable by law for the protection of the public. It shouldn't require lawsuits, it should be necessary up front. Of course, that would devastate the advertising industry and politics.

Agreed, which is why there are laws against false advertising though it’s so loosely upheld.

 
 Posted:   Sep 29, 2023 - 7:31 AM   
 By:   Nicolai P. Zwar   (Member)

The freedom to think and speak as you like is a given. But I don't understand why the concept of "truth" isn't protected. Knowingly lying for profit, exploitation or to cause harm to others should be a chargeable crime.

And it is. There are many instances where lying (regardless whether for profit or other reasons) is prohibited by law.


Any public statement should have to be verifiable by law for the protection of the public. It shouldn't require lawsuits, it should be necessary up front. Of course, that would devastate the advertising industry and politics.


The difficulty with that is that there are many statements you cannot "verify". Many statements are a mixture of opinion, facts, perceived facts, and conclusions. The only "verifiable" statements would be fact statements (and even there you will encounter lots of tricky ground), any form of conclusion is already open to debate. But the key issue is, you would need an ultimate arbiter of who decides what "truth" is, and laws to protect freedom of speech and freedom of religion have been implemented precisely to prevent the Installation of such an ultimate arbiter.

 
You must log in or register to post.
  Go to page:    
© 2024 Film Score Monthly. All Rights Reserved.
Website maintained and powered by Veraprise and Matrimont.