Chensorship Is A Power Tool
Hail to Norman Lowell everybody have the right to speak what he wants. Who
is the moral experts? Keneth Waine says. Satan or Jesus who in a secular world
can decide what it wrong what is right? In Pragmatic ethics we go great we
evolve good John Dewey believed. So if Normal Lowel win in theory that great
that mean. Giving no chance to Normal Lowel shows the fear of everybody that
Norman Lowel have potential to win. Malcolm X incited violence but was always
let to speak that means that liberty of expression to the full if you are
against Norman than don’t hear him or hear him and write against him. In a true
democracy everybody have the right to say what he wants even if he says the law is bulshit who am I to say it is not in the end it
is made by humans not by God by people who say that they are moral
expert could be yes or no who are you to say yes - God? Or the evagelist? In the end need to do what you speak.
Speaking is
abstract doing something is concrete.
Censorship the most should only be against to
protect people who are under 18 year old in the end but employing chensorship is legitimising manipulation of ideas from power. Everybody has the right to speak but not to
act against the law for the law to be changed whether it is church, gay rights
movements, or Nazis or Communist that is what a true liberal should believe but one can always have the right to advocate for the law to change as he believes in whatever direction to limit this is to limit directions. This therefore gives chance for movements to change the world or not to change the world in the end and for any possible dialogue to occur if parties wants.
Everyone should have the right to present his political ideas, no matter how extreme they are.
ReplyDeleteIf he believes the Holocaust didn't happen, or that that blacks are just a little more intelligent than rats, he can say it, why not?
That doesn't mean however that freedom of speech is absolute and that what one says has no consequence. Especially in these 2 cases:
1)Defamation
I can say what I think about you in public. I can say where you work in public (as long as it's true). But if I go around saying you're a paedophile without any proof, you have a right to sue me - and rightly so.
2)Threats and violence.
On the far right websites (including Lowell's) there are many threats to the "traitors", which include Jesuits, journalists, university professors and even us - the Greens. My own name for instance featured many times on their website followed by comments like "there will not be enough lampposts from Saqqajja to Valletta".
I don't really care, but after the 2006 petrol bomb attacks on those who dared speak against racism, some people are afraid.
Making a threat is not freedom of speech since amongst other things it limits the freedom of speech of the victim through fear.
The point is that violence is advertised also by such company like Dolce Gabana and is left in liberal country. As I see it you either leave everybody free speech or else if you take to court Norman Lowell you need also to take these companies if not you are doing discrimination on Norman Lowell and others people rights in the end that believe in his ideas. If you argue that people can be influenced to shoot at a black person the same can goes to the fact that they are influenced to commit violence by Dolce and Gabana and other violent advertising that occur in our society.
Deletehttp://www.fashionist.ca/2010/11/controversial-advertisements-violence-in-fashion-ads.html