Everywhere. On the web, on the street, in conversation - you name a form of communication and freedom of expression must be lawfully allowed.

Aside from the massive improvement it would have on the web, which is a series of dictatorships, it would also be another setback for the 'police state'. It would be the wrench in the works of the 'religious hatred' legislation and also to some extent this current fad with 'terrorism'.

arx_

what's your deal?

okay that will work. Now you just ahead and convince about 100+ dictators to give up their power. Have fun!

"So see here Mr. Jong sir, I have in my possession some Jammy Dodgers..."

It won't work because no one who can make it work will risk trying to. Don't blame them really, you'd need hundreds of leaders and politicians to stand up and say 'fuck power, freedom for the people'.

arx_

Who enforces "universal" law?

World government.

Bad.

It'd be nice. I know I'd fight for it.

exactly

If the internet is your suggested medium (which is all that makes sense), then...

As long as governments like the people's republic of China prevent full access to the internet it will not happen.

As long as people or other entities can establish pseudo-intellectual diahrrea behind complete anonynimity, and have massive followings of people without any real education, who consider themselves well read, then free expression will be meaningless.

Good point, but we're going there anyway right? Might as well do it on our terms.

arx_

Man, this is why 3/4 of arts students piss me off.

......

There will always be "uneducated" followers. We can't all be as educated as we would like on every subject that we support.
From there on its up to who you put your trust in. And thats one reason why information should be freed.

Article 19 of the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights:

"Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers."

Lets start expressing our hate of muslims by writing "Koran" on toilet paper and wiping our asses with it.

Lets experess ourselves by doing Hitler salutes in the middle of Berlin.

Lets go to Israel and deny the existance of the holocaust.

Or by going to the US and saying that Bush staged the 9/11 attacks in the faces of some Texan red-necks.

Freedom of expression is all nice and good, in theory. In the real world, people cant handle it.

Before you start looking at the internet, go and sort your country/city/home out.

We in the first world cant express ourselves fully, and you want it done on the internet?

Actully on the internet its easy, go and make a post, if Totse/[insert-name-here] doesnt allow it, go make your own website and host it yourself.Sounds simple, doesnt it? Well it is.

People did that

People did that too I believe; but were arrested for 'Holocaust Denial Laws

Heh; that's a crime.

Alex Jones did that.

And the flame wars begin

Damn straight nigga

That's exactly what I'm saying we should be able to do. I want to be able to deny the holocaust if I'm in the mood, I want to be able to incite religious hatred, I want to have absolutely no reigns at all.

These small laws, these tiny infringements on our freedom, are just building blocks for bigger ones. People are getting confused that my main focus was the internet, it's not, it's every single possible form of communication, internet included.

Here's an example of what could have happened that Freedom of Expression/Speech stopped: The FCC can no longer punish television networks for having obscene language in their programs. However, should they still be able to, what's the logical progression of their power? No-political-programming? No anti-current-government programming? No anti-current-leader programming?
It would have happened, look how much the world has changed these past ten years, but now it's been hindered because they no longer have the building blocks to make it happen.

arx_

Yes, let's. If you can find an audience.
Better than censorship.

Exactly, freedom isn't all puppies and rainbows, people should learn to accept the negatives along with the positives. You can't be moderate about liberty.

Universal freedom of speech doesn't work. It leads to violence and conflict. Just because your rights tell you that you can call a man a racially derogative word doesn't mean he won't beat you for saying it.

And just because you can say a racially derogative word doesn't mean you can't be fired for it. For me, that's where freedom of speech ends, and it's unfortunate because media censorship comes from not the government but the people/ (See Fahrenheit 451 on that..)

Although the common idiot is coaxed into believing "freedom of expression" exists in America it does not.

Increasing sanctions of freedom of expression are justified by abstract connections with terroism, thus making it ok to revoke our freedoms.

I suppose in theory you can express yourself, but not at the cost of being investigated and spied on if you speak negativly about this farce in which we call a 'constitutional government'.

"Those who trade freedom for protection deserve niether."

Only State actors should be prevented from interfering with freedom of expression. Private actors should have no such restrictions. The owners of this website, for instance, have every right to control its content, particularly as they are the ones held legally responsible for it in other areas. Every person has the right to control what messages they associate themselves with. If the Jeff Hunters of the world cannot control what is said on their private websites, then they are forced to implicitly play host to and associate themselves with whatever message people want to spout here. Just like you shouldn't be able to shut people up entirely, you shouldn't be able to force words into other people's mouths, or interfere with the messages and beliefs with which they associate themselves.

__________________
-=שמע ישראל יהוה אלהינו יהוה אחד=-

Boohoo, so you can't say whatever you want and face no consequences.

Fucking idiots.

Take some accountability.

Well said.

Well how is it different?

If I say something and something bad happens to me. Doesnt that deter me (and you) from expressing myself?


If the people cant handle the freedom of expression, does the state have to interfere?

The negativity is what in itself acts against your liberty.

If someone, say, took a shit on my truck, they could say that they were expressing themselves and get away with it?

What if someone took a shit on my truck, and I beat the fuck out of him? Was it unprovoked because he has freedom of expression?

Freedom of speech should certainly exist on a level that is uninfringed by government, but if you think it is reasonable or possible to enforce it or even conceive it on a person to person level, you're just thinking unrealistically.

It should be like the 2nd ammendment.

You can own all the guns you want but if you shoot someone do not expect any legal protection for anything less than self defence.

What you are talking about here is assault. Which to my knowledge is illegal. You could sue the guy, but assault is a no-no.

How could I sue him? He was expressing himself.

Cough *SLANDER* cough

And speaking of which, how is 'slander' in conjunction with freedom of speech? How is it not an obvious contradiction?

How about I express my opinion of your suggestion by whooping your ass and peeing in your butt?

Exactly. It is.

My point is that the government should pass no law abridging freedom of speech, but you can not expect to enforce it on a person to person basis. If your speech wrongfully (key word is wrongfully) damages someone, then yeah, they should be able to sue you.

Now, if their allegations are true...