LDS Freedom Forum

Joel wrote:Another principle of liberty is the right to own private property, this website is owned by Brian, so it is his private property. As such is the case it is his pleasure to operate his property as he sees fit. One of the rules he expects us to follow is to be kind to each other. If someone personally gets Brian's permission to break the rule and with this permission this person wants embrace their darkside, they can go ahead give me their worst insults!

I have never reported a post and I do not plan to start now! :p

SmallFarm wrote:I find your trolling methods overt and infantile.

A Random Phrase wrote:Maybe we can get this thread long enough for people to think Joel wants to be insulted?

By the way, Hi, Small Farm. [waves]

A Random Phrase wrote:Maybe we can get this thread long enough for people to think Joel wants to be insulted?

By the way, Hi, Small Farm. [waves]

SmallFarm wrote: Hiya. %%- :YMPEACE:

Joel wrote:AKA Reform Section 5

This is one of my favorite little speeches on freedom of speech given in 2012 by Rowan Atkinson when he was campaigning to reform a horrible law restricting speech in his country. Ultimately, with a lot of other people working for this change the campaign met its goal and reformed the law.

From October 2006; Heralding the First Amendment, proponents of free speech champion the right to expression unencumbered by government intervention. But is freedom of expression absolute and limitless? Should we be free to use words with the intention to harm? Should some words remain unspoken, or does this mind-set lead us to the path of censorship?

For The Motion
Any limitation of free speech opens the door to government censorship, and consequently grants political leaders the power to suppress dissent and opposing views.

The First Amendment safeguards Americans’ right to criticize religious, political or social beliefs or practice regardless of whether or not some may find those criticisms offensive.

Censorship does not alleviate existing racism or bigotry; rather, it discourages dialogue between those with opposing views.

Against The Motion
Freedom of speech is not absolute; it is legally limited to protect Americans’ safety and should be restricted to ensure civility.

Speech that marginalizes or disenfranchises specific individuals or communities should be restricted for the good of society as a whole.

Technological advances have given individuals an unprecedented power to amplify their voices, and as a society we must act to ensure that this power is regulated and used responsibly.


http://www.intelligencesquaredus.org/de ... nse-offend