How Free is Too Free?
- Thread starter NewClassic_v1legacy
- Start date
Recommended Videos
There is such a thing as "too much" freedom--it's what happens when someone believes that they have the "freedom" to violate someone else's rights--the fundamental rights to life, liberty, and property.
(I should probably clarify that the only rights I consider valid are rights to *action*. The fact that you have the right to sustain your life through your own effort does not mean that you have the right to have your life provided by the effort of others. The fact that you have the right to keep and dispose of the property you've created does not mean that you have the right to be given any particular piece of property.)
As to your specific examples:
A journalist leaking information about troop movements in a war zone should be treated as an enemy spy and executed immediately without trial. This is because such information could directly result in the deaths of thousands of soldiers and civilians in an emergency situation--a war. Military doctrine and authority must come first in a war because the protection of rights of the journalists presumably depend upon the defense of the country that protects those same rights. When you start aiding and abetting the enemy, all bets are off. All other speech, however, is properly protected. That means you can print, say, or broadcast whatever you like--provided you can find someone who will pay you for it.
If a business harms you or your property you have as much right to sue them or press criminal charges as if an individual does so. If *rights* are respected as a matter of principle, then no one has anything to fear from other men. However, this doesn't grant you the right to sue "big business" on the behalf of non-humans or inanimate objects.
(I should probably clarify that the only rights I consider valid are rights to *action*. The fact that you have the right to sustain your life through your own effort does not mean that you have the right to have your life provided by the effort of others. The fact that you have the right to keep and dispose of the property you've created does not mean that you have the right to be given any particular piece of property.)
As to your specific examples:
A journalist leaking information about troop movements in a war zone should be treated as an enemy spy and executed immediately without trial. This is because such information could directly result in the deaths of thousands of soldiers and civilians in an emergency situation--a war. Military doctrine and authority must come first in a war because the protection of rights of the journalists presumably depend upon the defense of the country that protects those same rights. When you start aiding and abetting the enemy, all bets are off. All other speech, however, is properly protected. That means you can print, say, or broadcast whatever you like--provided you can find someone who will pay you for it.
If a business harms you or your property you have as much right to sue them or press criminal charges as if an individual does so. If *rights* are respected as a matter of principle, then no one has anything to fear from other men. However, this doesn't grant you the right to sue "big business" on the behalf of non-humans or inanimate objects.
What about this, the Iraq War. Been going since 2001, I'd hardly call it an emergency situation. To execute a journalist for reporting the news is a huge shut down on the freedom of speech, and definitely a crime. (My opinion.)JMeganSnow post=18.70264.687309 said:
Then speech isn't free, it's free with provisions. Which, I'd say, is kinda an affront to the whole freedom aspect of it. At least, what I claim to be beyond the line.
Power-hungry leaders can always manufacture some kind of "emergency". If you endorse curtailing our freedoms during an emergency, you endorse curtailing them at all times.
I'm also of the belief that as long as your not affecting another person in a negative way that whatever you do is your own right.
Now about reporters in military situations I believe they should be allowed to report wars uncensored providing it doesn't in danger other peoples lives. It wouldn't be hard to report what is happening in detail but be vague on exactly where. This of course only applies if the militaries acting 'legally' within the war zone. Now if say an hypothetical incident occurred where military personal were murdering civilians it should be reported to the world right away.
I agree with everything you said here except the polygamy comment. I fail to see how if multiple people are happy to be in a polygamic relationship with each other that its anyones business but there own. Monogamy is only the accepted norm in western society because of the Christian background. There are many cultures around the world that have other moral structures on marriage and as long it's all mutual what business does the government have in there lives?Khell_Sennet post=18.70264.686237 said:
Now about reporters in military situations I believe they should be allowed to report wars uncensored providing it doesn't in danger other peoples lives. It wouldn't be hard to report what is happening in detail but be vague on exactly where. This of course only applies if the militaries acting 'legally' within the war zone. Now if say an hypothetical incident occurred where military personal were murdering civilians it should be reported to the world right away.
What about the flip side of the coin? Say a reporter gets an interview with a terrorist leader or insurgent members in a training camp, and the military then uses that information (or follows the reporter, or tracks them using satellite, or whatever) and launches an air strike on the training camp?
I put my opinion (and predictions) in a spoiler so that you can think about this on your own before being influenced by anyone else's opinion. Think about it carefully, especially in relation to previous posts you may have made.
I put my opinion (and predictions) in a spoiler so that you can think about this on your own before being influenced by anyone else's opinion. Think about it carefully, especially in relation to previous posts you may have made.
According to just about everything said above, the military would use the report to harm others... albeit their 'enemy'. Does the same rule about "it's ok as long as others don't get hurt" apply when its your enemy? I think the majority of people who have posted here would agree that it's justified, or okay "in this case". In other words, the freedoms are okay, as long as it doesnt hurt "our" people (in most cases here, the military), but as soon as "our" people are threatened or placed in danger, it goes too far.
I believe freedom is the feeling of not being restricted by any means. wich is quite indiviual.
under government law people are always restricted in some way.
but maybe an apt title for this thread would be: The price of freedom of how free is freedom.
but there are certain laws that must be follows. like no killing, being ableto take the life of another is not freedom. It's playing god
under government law people are always restricted in some way.
but maybe an apt title for this thread would be: The price of freedom of how free is freedom.
but there are certain laws that must be follows. like no killing, being ableto take the life of another is not freedom. It's playing god
Well, as for American reporters who come from a 'Free' country. I would like to know why they have freedom of speech when they are reporting from a different country? If they are no longer in America, why would the laws still apply?
Also, the other side is that the reporters aren't the only guilty party involved in things like that. They are restricted from going into certain areas. It's not like they can be there in the war rooms when the plans are being made. So, they get their information from somewhere. That goes back to the troops themselves.
Also, the other side is that the reporters aren't the only guilty party involved in things like that. They are restricted from going into certain areas. It's not like they can be there in the war rooms when the plans are being made. So, they get their information from somewhere. That goes back to the troops themselves.
Just because spies are caught and killed by the other side doesn't mean you can dispense with military intelligence. I'm not opposed to reporters in war zones, I'm just saying that it's a Report At Your Own Risk situation. The military is (or should be) too busy fighting to spend time escorting privileged nosy civilians around.kinch post=18.70264.688585 said:
That, and the Iraq war has, in general, been prosecuted extremely badly. If you're going to have a war, it should be because your country or your allies have been attacked or threatened by an aggressor, you should go in, smash the place up sufficiently to prevent them from launching another attack, and get the hell out.
In extreme cases of ideologically-motivated war (such as the Axis countries after WWII) I could see some arguments that it may be necessary to install a constitutional (not a democratic, a CONSTITUTIONAL free government) and garrison the place until the militant old guard die out. It worked fairly well with Germany and Japan, but they were SMASHED beforehand.
Since America seems to be the Big Stick of choice nowadays, it'd really help if we had some sort of rational foreign policy, but we haven't had one of those for fifty years at least.