The Student Room Group

Justifiable reasons for limiting Freedom Of Speech

Scroll to see replies

Original post by Comus
Being religoius and believing in a secular basis for government aren't mutually exclusive.



I'm sorry, but this is a very rose-tinted and naive view of the past.



Obviously if we are going to have human rights at all then they should be entrenched one way or another and fiercely defended, but why should they be immutable? As our understanding expands, why shouldn't out interpretation of rights?


Not sure what I'm suppose to respond to, but as for my rosy view of the past this is how it was. All the childrens shows show had a moral to, In the 30's and 40's radio had very strict censorship. In fact the very first broadcasters began as a way to get religious programing to people who lived miles from a church and to shut-ins. When T.V. began these censors went to work in that industry. This may sound naive but it is also quite factual.

Our Basic human rights should be immutable because if their not some freak is going to think he has a better idea.
Original post by Comus
Being religoius and believing in a secular basis for government aren't mutually exclusive.



I'm sorry, but this is a very rose-tinted and naive view of the past.



Obviously if we are going to have human rights at all then they should be entrenched one way or another and fiercely defended, but why should they be immutable? As our understanding expands, why shouldn't out interpretation of rights?


Our rights should be immutable so the same that happened to Britains doesn't happen to ours.
Original post by oldercon1953
Not sure what I'm suppose to respond to, but as for my rosy view of the past this is how it was. All the childrens shows show had a moral to, In the 30's and 40's radio had very strict censorship. In fact the very first broadcasters began as a way to get religious programing to people who lived miles from a church and to shut-ins. When T.V. began these censors went to work in that industry. This may sound naive but it is also quite factual.

Our Basic human rights should be immutable because if their not some freak is going to think he has a better idea.


We are back to fairy tale gods again. The gods that acquiesce in human slavery and, in some cases, human sacrifice. Rights derived from such fairy tales are worthless. Meaningful rights are derived from man-made law backed up by a humane and reasonable, yet strong, nation state.
Original post by Good bloke
We are back to fairy tale gods again. The gods that acquiesce in human slavery and, in some cases, human sacrifice. Rights derived from such fairy tales are worthless. Meaningful rights are derived from man-made law backed up by a humane and reasonable, yet strong, nation state.
In your first sentence you are judging these acts as immoral,(slavery and sacrifice). These are clearly acts that are designed and carried out by man. You are willing to have these same men as provider and protector of your freedoms? Good luck with that. I mean, what could go wrong.

Any rights granted to you by society will always be inadequate. The majority will ALWAYS retain for itself the option or the right to, "adjust", the freedoms it granted you, depending on the situation at the time. And it can legally do this with a simple majority vote. In a representative form of Gov. the individual may not even be aware his freedom is being infringed on. The majority can do this because it is the source of all freedoms granted the individual. The individual doesn't own them.

Since it is clear that any right granted me by society is inadequate I don't want them. They do not grant me the fullest expression of ideas. I prefer to claim my natural rights. they're not situational and the Gov. is legally bound by the Constitution to honor them. They are TOTAL. The limits on them are as self evident as the rights themselves.
(edited 7 years ago)

Quick Reply

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you