Free Speech! How Should It Work?

Cooperation is the foundation of any and all societies. A high level of cooperation leads to a higher standard of living and a greater degree of prosperity. A low level of cooperation leads to a breaking down of society as seen so many times in man’s history. When we agree to cooperate in an effort to make and maintain a society we agree to respect each others rights whether we acknowledge this openly or not.

Our rights are the guidelines of our freedoms. If one man’s freedom becomes another man’s slavery that is not freedom but an abuse of freedom. It is a blatant act of disrespect and a severe lack of cooperation, thus counterproductive to society. People that willfully disrespect the rights of others in a society are an enemy to society no matter how their religion or personal beliefs may justify such actions.

Speech is a very important freedom that is abused quite often in our society. Rev. Fred Phelps and his congregation have a right to voice their opinion and protest. The grieving widows, mothers, fathers, sons, and daughters of fallen servicemen have a right to have a quiet private ceremony for their departed loved ones. Rev. Phelps and his congregation denied these people their right to have a respectful burial. An act that put his rights over the rights of the mourners thus breaking the basic law of cooperation, the foundation of society itself.

The other common misuse of freedom of speech is harassment. When speech is used strictly for the purpose of slander or abuse it is no longer freedom of speech but a form of harassment. Harassment again is a violation of the basic law of cooperation. People have a right not to be harassed.

For those of you out there that are saying I’m free not to cooperate, you’re right. But you’re also free to join those millions of other people around the world rotting in jail for their lack of cooperation. When Jesus said “Judge not lest ye yourselves be judged” he was alluding to this very point. “Control not lest ye yourself be controlled;” “Enslave not lest ye yourself be enslaved;” “Manipulate not lest ye yourself be manipulated …”

Cooperation and mutual respect paves the way to freedom, for with freedom comes the responsibility of other peoples freedoms. Without this cooperation, society and our freedoms will perish in the flames of selfish self-righteous stupidity.

ISN, Rev. Michael S. Margolin

, , , , ,

  • chinagreenelvis

    lolwut

  • chinagreenelvis

    lolwut

  • Andrew

    A Satanist who quotes Jesus?  Excellent!

  • Andrew

    A Satanist who quotes Jesus?  Excellent!

  • Okarin

    as t.v. media says it, they only give you a ‘voice’ when you’re covered in their news channel

  • Okarin

    as t.v. media says it, they only give you a ‘voice’ when you’re covered in their news channel

  • Simiantongue

    “Rev. Phelps and his congregation denied these people their right to have
    a respectful burial. An act that put his rights over the rights of the
    mourners thus breaking the basic law of cooperation, the foundation of
    society itself.”

    This is not really an accurate description of the events that led to the supreme court decision. Let me add quickly that I am not defending the Westboro Baptist church in this. I am just making the facts of the case clear and extolling the principles of free speech. I shouldn’t have to make that clear but there it is just in case.

    They did in fact picket the funeral service of Lance Cpl. Matthew A. Snyder. But the family of the deceased were completely unaware of the Westboro groups presence as they were too far away for them to be seen or even heard. They picketed quietly and non-violently out of sight, they complied with the law and law enforcement officers. Not until the next day, seeing it on the news, were the family aware of their presence nearby. Nobody was denied their rights to have a respectful burial.

    The whole crux of this case (pun intended) was that the distress of the family was due to the content and viewpoint of the Westboro group. Not whether they interfered with the funeral service in any way. That is why ultimately the Supreme court decided in the Westboro groups favor.

    Had the Westboro group been there to interrupt or cause distress during the service that would be a different matter. Then you may say that the Westboro group had put their rights over the rights of the mourners. But they didn’t, the statement I quoted above disingenuously makes it seem as if their protest was in some way disruptive of the burial service or that it was somehow visible to the family. It wasn’t.

    The fact of it is that the family were suing because the Westboro group’s content and viewpoint caused distress to the family a day after the service, not because they denied them their right to have a respectful burial or interrupted the service in any way. Suing someone because the content and viewpoint of their speech causes you distress undermines one of the basic principles of free speech. You can’t sue someone and restrict their free speech merely because you find it upsetting or contemptible. If you believe that then you don’t really believe in free speech. You only believe in acceptable speech. It’s that speech that we disagree with that needs protection, not speech everyone agrees with.

    For example. If you wish to talk about how good candy taste or how much you like cute and fuzzy bunnies, there is not much need to protect your speech as most are going to agree with you. But on the other hand if you want to criticize the food industry about the widespread use of high fructose corn syrup in just about everything we eat now, which may be one of the causes of increasing rates of obesity and diabetes. Or if you speak about the cruel conditions of factory farming rabbits for their pelts. The factory farmers and food industry could make a very good case that the viewpoint and content of your speech is causing them and others much distress and should be silenced. If that was all it took to silence free speech.

  • Simiantongue

    “Rev. Phelps and his congregation denied these people their right to have
    a respectful burial. An act that put his rights over the rights of the
    mourners thus breaking the basic law of cooperation, the foundation of
    society itself.”

    This is not really an accurate description of the events that led to the supreme court decision. Let me add quickly that I am not defending the Westboro Baptist church in this. I am just making the facts of the case clear and extolling the principles of free speech. I shouldn’t have to make that clear but there it is just in case.

    They did in fact picket the funeral service of Lance Cpl. Matthew A. Snyder. But the family of the deceased were completely unaware of the Westboro groups presence as they were too far away for them to be seen or even heard. They picketed quietly and non-violently out of sight, they complied with the law and law enforcement officers. Not until the next day, seeing it on the news, were the family aware of their presence nearby. Nobody was denied their rights to have a respectful burial.

    The whole crux of this case (pun intended) was that the distress of the family was due to the content and viewpoint of the Westboro group. Not whether they interfered with the funeral service in any way. That is why ultimately the Supreme court decided in the Westboro groups favor.

    Had the Westboro group been there to interrupt or cause distress during the service that would be a different matter. Then you may say that the Westboro group had put their rights over the rights of the mourners. But they didn’t, the statement I quoted above disingenuously makes it seem as if their protest was in some way disruptive of the burial service or that it was somehow visible to the family. It wasn’t.

    The fact of it is that the family were suing because the Westboro group’s content and viewpoint caused distress to the family a day after the service, not because they denied them their right to have a respectful burial or interrupted the service in any way. Suing someone because the content and viewpoint of their speech causes you distress undermines one of the basic principles of free speech. You can’t sue someone and restrict their free speech merely because you find it upsetting or contemptible. If you believe that then you don’t really believe in free speech. You only believe in acceptable speech. It’s that speech that we disagree with that needs protection, not speech everyone agrees with.

    For example. If you wish to talk about how good candy taste or how much you like cute and fuzzy bunnies, there is not much need to protect your speech as most are going to agree with you. But on the other hand if you want to criticize the food industry about the widespread use of high fructose corn syrup in just about everything we eat now, which may be one of the causes of increasing rates of obesity and diabetes. Or if you speak about the cruel conditions of factory farming rabbits for their pelts. The factory farmers and food industry could make a very good case that the viewpoint and content of your speech is causing them and others much distress and should be silenced. If that was all it took to silence free speech.

  • Stumage

    I agree, if you have a problem with someone else’s viewpoint that’s your problem, not theirs. The heart of the matter with any kind of freedom, is that it truly only exists if you yourself have the right to enforce it, otherwise it is really only freedom by proxy. This is one of the reasons the rich and elite are able to get away with the things that they do.

  • Stumage

    I agree, if you have a problem with someone else’s viewpoint that’s your problem, not theirs. The heart of the matter with any kind of freedom, is that it truly only exists if you yourself have the right to enforce it, otherwise it is really only freedom by proxy. This is one of the reasons the rich and elite are able to get away with the things that they do.

  • BaphometRex666

    I even quote Jesus on our manifesto,
    http://www.sosatan.org

  • BaphometRex666

    I even quote Jesus on our manifesto,
    http://www.sosatan.org

  • http://itmeets.com/ IT Store GCC

     * Ethical Hacking – A security analyst can also use hacking skills to identify weak areas in a site and thus tweak the security framework. This process is extremely effective as it allows you to detect weaknesses before they are found and misused by spiteful hackers.
     

  • http://itmeets.com/ ITJobs

     * Ethical Hacking – A security analyst can also use hacking skills to identify weak areas in a site and thus tweak the security framework. This process is extremely effective as it allows you to detect weaknesses before they are found and misused by spiteful hackers.
     

  • http://itmeets.com/ IT Store GCC

    Quick Thinking – You need to be able to solve problems as fast as possible as delays can lead to detrimental losses of important information which must be avoided at all costs. Any threat to the system must be instantaneously detected and deflected.
     

  • http://itmeets.com/ ITJobs

    Quick Thinking – You need to be able to solve problems as fast as possible as delays can lead to detrimental losses of important information which must be avoided at all costs. Any threat to the system must be instantaneously detected and deflected.