you make some very good points.

The truth is, it is not as bad here in England as what you’ve apparently heard, although I don’t live anywhere near London where the problems you mentioned do exist. It’s the same in all major cities I suppose, but some cities are worse than others for this ridiculous political correctness; it’s probably because they’re more multicultural, which breeds the evil attitude of multiculturalism.

Incidentally, I notice that you exclude democracy from the things you’re against. I should point out that democracy is just another form of total rule which doesn’t respect individual rights. Democracy might be an improvement on communism, fascism, and a theocracy, but it is still immoral.

Also, with respect to the post above on “force”, if muslims find out I’m an atheist (a freethinker, a secular humanist), will I be killed?

I’m not joking but I’ve heard so many horror stories and its hard to distinguish them from urban myths, let alone the ethos which surrounds the UK landscape. And, is the capital called Londonistan or London?

I heard your airports have arabic writing and prayer rooms? Is this true – have you become Saudi Arabia’s puppet for the Islamisation of Europe? Am I obligated to take part in prayer or can I nod my head in disgust, pick my luggage and leave as I didn’t see that?

Although I wouldn’t go out of my way to insult muslims, but if I somehow get cornered in a conversation with a muslim (or christian) in a public space and I tell them their religion is evil and that the bulk of atrocities and violence has been in done in the name of their religions, will the British government protect my rights as a commonwealth citizen in case either party decides to use force to shut me up?

If I wear a t-shirt depicting theo van gogh or am caught with any of these books : golden compasss, the satanic verses, letters to a christian nation, the god delusion, etc, will I be flogged or stoned?

Will I be jailed for talking against the teachings of quran or the bible or the jewish talmud?

Can I be proud to eat a beef hamburger in a predominantly hindu neighbourhood or will they put up a fuss and have me throw it out?

Can I eat pork chops in my dorm room’s kitchen or will muslims pick up a stink and have me dispose of it?

If I find there is nothing wrong with a girl not covering her hair, can I request or comment on the very attractive girls who wear such islamic garments to take them off as they are not in a mosque but in a public space such as a library or university classroom?

I’m seriously contemplating whether I should take my post in UK or take my acceptance in France or Germany for my M.P.A.

I respect cultures of countries whose governments espouse democracy, free speech and the like. I am against communism, theocracy or other totalitarian regimes.

Can I request NON-hahal or kosher meat at the grocery store or am I forced to eat meat prepared by theists?

unfortunately, because the government has so much interference in our personal lives, government and government officials think nothing about issuing opinions and suggestions about what would she do and even think.

A perfect example of this is the healthcare system. Because government pays for healthcare, it thinks it can and should dictate what people should spend their money on and how they should live their lives. In a free market, this would be a personal matter for the individual and any healthcare company that chose to deal with them.

I don’t suppose you know if Ki-moon has ever been called upon to retract or amend his statement? On the surface, it may seem to be an inconsequential issue but I don’t believe it is: when public officials improperly use their offices to promote dangerous and contradictory ideas, we’re all in trouble. Tying “freedom” and “respect” together into a “package-deal” is one way to attack both concepts, whether or not such an attack was the intention. (“Package-deal” – Ayn Rand’s phrase, not mine. Please excuse me if I’m using it incorrectly.) Statements from government officials should be made with care to avoid setting the stage for having a personal opinion evolve into govenment policy.

“Under a proper social system, a private individual is legally free to take any action he pleases (so long as he does not violate the rights of others), while a government official is bound by law in his every official act. A private individual may do anything except that which is legally forbidden; a government official may do nothing except that which is legally permitted.” – The Nature of Government, TVOS

Therefore, any statement that a government official takes should be consonant with his specific limited tasks at hand. A government official who comes out and states “We will take punitive decisive action against anybody who violates the law” is fully authorised to do so. If the official then says “We would ask that certain people be careful what they say lest they offend some ethnic group”, he has stepped outside his remit as a government official, and beyond his legitimate powers, and needs to be castigated.

Freedom of speech is an absolute whereas Ki-moon’s statement is more of a value-judgement: this distinction should be made clear. I agree with the original post that claims such a statement is irresponsible. Some of the follow-up posts suggest that his statement is protected under the principle of free speech. As a private citizen, Ki-moon’s statements are protected but this is not the case: his “value-judgement” is in fact, a statement of policy made by a government official. Are such policy statements actually protected by the principle of free speech?

When I read the comments about respect, I was thinking about good manners. I teach my children good manners towards people they may dislike and/or disagree with. Good manners are an important tool for existing in a free society. But they are not imposed from without–they come from within. One may not respect the point of view expressed peacibly by another, but one can choose to deal with it using good manners or one may simply ignore it. There are also times when good manners are not called for, for example, when someone initiates force against you. Then a forcible response is required. Therefore, I teach my children to use good manners, but also to defend themselves against bullies.

IMNSHO–the words and tactics of Kofi Annan are from the bully pulpit and ought to responded to forthrightly rather than politely.

Stella, I see your point – demanding access to someone else’s property (newspaper, website, etc.) is a violation of the owner’s rights. Another issue that seems obvious, at least in hindsight. Thanks for your comments – the issue is now more clear to me.

The answer is: Free speech means no one may force you to keep quiet or to say what you don’t mean. Those who claim a newspaper editor must publish columns espousing views he opposes, in the name of “free speech,” are actually violating the EDITOR’S right to free speech: They want to force him to print something he disagrees with. Similarly, the owner of a website does not have to allow every Tom, Dick, and Harry to post; he is not obliged to use HIS space to broadcast views he does not hold. “Free speech” means that opponents of a particular media outlet have the option of saying whatever they like in response, in their own space and at their own expense — not that the media outlet must be forced to print its own rebuttal.

As a side point, its interesting to note that Rushdie is condemned for exercising his right to free speech – and then those religious leaders who condemn him use the same right to promote his murder.

Teddy – the right to free speech does not include the threat of force. Force, the use and/or threat of it is a violation of rights, and there can be no right to violate a right.

Those who advocate violence or the use of physical force are stepping outside their legal and moral Rights and should be restrained.

I agree with everything else you said.

John said:

You wouldn’t see any censorship on our site, Anarchology.org thats for damn sure!

John, censorship can only be performed by government. In a free society, all property is private which means that the proprietor can do whatever they want with their own property, which includes limiting the speech of those who use it.

The government however is the only organisation that can use physical force to restrain an individual’s freedom.

Only the government can censor information. Whatever you choose to do on your website, you cannot “censor” anyone. Censorship does not mean that one must give a forum to any nutjob who chooses to use your property as a means of self-expression.

We shouldn’t have any restrictions on information available to the public. You wouldn’t see any censorship on our site, Anarchology.org thats for damn sure!

The point of my post is that there are a few “gray” areas and the topic of Free Speech could benefit from some expansion. “Gray” should not be taken to imply moral ambiguity: its just that my communication skills are not up to the task of answering some of the opponents of Free Speech. Maybe those of you who see the issue a little more clearly can help?

1. Speech may be free but the forum to express it is not. Nor should it be. If I respond to a post with an unpopular view, or with an irrational and hateful rant, the webmaster may choose to remove my post. This is obviously fair. In fact, an editor is free to block or remove posts for any reason – or no reason at all – and still remain within his rights. It is entirely proper that the owner or provider of any media retains the right to withhold access to that media as he chooses. The same applies any form of media (radio, television, newspapers, etc.) My concern: Those with views to express may claim that the concept of Free Speech itself is flawed when they find themselves without an audience, when, due to financial or ideological reasons, they are unable gain access to any popular forum. How to answer this type of opponent of free speech?

2. What of views that are expressly “violent” or “dangerous”? I know – that’s not a particularly clear description and an example is in required: Suppose a religious leader condemns a person (or an entire people) for holding views against his faith. The religious leader posts a proclamation that calls upon his followers to seek that person’s destruction. i.e.: Salman Rushdie – those more informed than myself could probably come up with many other examples. (As a side point, its interesting to note that Rushdie is condemned for exercising his right to free speech – and then those religious leaders who condemn him use the same right to promote his murder.) Obviously such a proclamation is immoral but how to integrate that into the concept of free speech?

Opponents of free speech have used such examples to attack it. Can someone please help identify ways to answer them? Thanks.

As far as the note, absolutely. The law of non-contradiction is not just a philosophy regarding logic, it also is found in all branches of philosophy, including justified ethics and morality. This means that it is /impossible/ for one to have the right to violate another right, meaning that freedom and responsibility can never contradict.