Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Nisha DSouza]

"If freedom of speech is taken away, then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter." ~ George Washington (Founding Father and first president of the United States)

The above words are relevant even today when we see multitudes of unjust ways in which people are treated. Why, then, do we not choose to raise our voices against atrocities committed against defenseless people? Why do we stay silent and turn a blind eye, much like animals unaware of the consequences? Why do most of us behave indifferently until we, or someone very close to us, become a victim of the same injustice?

Some may say, "If you want to stay out of trouble, then it's best to stay quiet and lay low." We all know what happens when one decides to fight or use their freedom of speech to protest against something. On October 1st, 2024, many Nigerians held a peaceful protest against the growing inflation and economic crisis that turned into a deadly crackdown by the government, with several people getting killed and many arrested.

The Tiananmen Square massacre that happened over 35 years ago is still one of the most heartbreaking man-made disasters, wouldn't you agree? According to an Amnesty International article, "The Chinese authorities want everyone to forget that they killed hundreds, if not thousands, of unarmed peaceful pro-democracy protesters in Tiananmen Square in 1989." Military deployed to take down their own countrymen who were merely protesting and calling for political and economic reforms. Is that reason enough to mass murder people and is that legal simply because the government did the killing?

Free speech in any country is of the utmost importance. Everyone deserves the right to express their opinions and disagreements without the threat of a violent reaction from the governing bodies. I will leave you with this famous quote, "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." Let me know if you agree or disagree.

Free Speech.png (3.81 MiB) Viewed 719 times

[Seetha E]

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

I agree. Basic human rights-right to express your opinion without fear.

[Nisha DSouza]

Yes, that's the most basic human right without which everything else is pointless.

[Sushan]

Free speech isn't just a right; it's the backbone of a just society. Silencing voices leads to oppression, as history has shown us time and again in situations like Tiananmen Square, peaceful protests crushed in Nigeria, and countless other tragedies. Raise your voice, not just for yourself, but for those who can't.

[Melissa Jane]

Freedom of speech is very important. Once we start letting the government to determine which speech are allowed and which ones aren't, we give them a chance to censor anything they disagree with.

[SarahZ]

It is the most basic human right to speak freely and express one's opinion. But I see that many have started using this as an excuse to attack others under the pretext of freedom of expression. Your opinion must be objective and not offensive to any specific people. Expressing an opinion means rejecting, criticizing, or even accepting something, but without verbally abusing, assaulting, or blatantly interfering in the affairs of others under the pretext of freedom of opinion. There is a sentence that I don't know if English can express well, but I will try. "Your freedom ends where others' freedom begins". You have your freedom and I have mine, each of us according to his culture, faith, nature and country.

I strongly agree that everyone should defend their rights in their own way, but having an opinion doesn't mean that you should belittle the opinions of others.
If I find your words and opinions honest, I will stand by you. Especially if I don't disagree with you fundamentally. And even so, if you are right, then you free to express, and I will not criticize you.

As for political opinions, I find that the whole world lacks freedom of opinion. It is full of interests and systematic media. Something I hope will change one day.
A broad topic to discuss and it's good that you wrote about it Nisha.

[Sy Borg]

I saw it as a turning point. It looked like China would liberalise but they went the other way. The balance between order and freedom has been debated seemingly forever. There appears not to be a one-size-fits-all approach, depending on an area's geography, climate, history, culture, population, population distribution, resources and neighbours.

I'm personally glad to be living in a relatively free nation, but I recognise that other places don't have the luxury of operating like Australia. Some nations are surrounded by hostile and/or uncooperative neighbours, requiring greater vigilance than, say, Australia or Austria.

So, yes, from a western perspective, the Tiananmen Square massacre obviously violated the human rights of protesters. Then again, in a world with over 300 million people living in abject poverty, it would seem that rules that create and enforce rights are not very influential.

Ultimately, the progressive agenda is to gentrify the world, to ever more obscure the fact that all life needs to kill and exploit other life to survive. The wild is nasty, and reducing people's exposure to nature's terrors is the right thing to do. This requires order, control. Not saying I agree, but it seems to me that the CCP's attitude regarding the massacre is they were breaking eggs so to b able to make an omelette, so to speak. They needed order, they sought control, and they wasted no time in obtaining it. Then again, how many people in non-western nations have been killed for their political persuasion. Between Yemen and Syria alone, there's almost a million dead. South Sudan is a killing field. Severe civil strife is hell.

[Lagayascienza]

In some countries the choices seems to be stability or anarchy and violence. It will be interesting to see how much free speech there will be in Syria when/if the Islamists take over from Assad.

[Surabhi Rani]

Ma'am, this is a noble and commendable endeavor on your part to raise our awareness against the injustices prevailing in the society. The government commits atrocities on the innocent masses demanding justice. The article is illustrative as well because it cites an example from history.

[Amy Jackson]

I agree with you. Freedom of speech and expression is a fundamental human right. Keeping people in fear such that they can't even speak up when in distress, is a form of oppression that has to stop.

[Nisha DSouza]

Free speech isn't just a right; it's the backbone of a just society. Silencing voices leads to oppression, as history has shown us time and again in situations like Tiananmen Square, peaceful protests crushed in Nigeria, and countless other tragedies. Raise your voice, not just for yourself, but for those who can't.

Absolutely! It is when this basic right gets taken from people that the freedom of everyone, including the silent ones, is jeopardized.

[Nisha DSouza]

Freedom of speech is very important. Once we start letting the government to determine which speech are allowed and which ones aren't, we give them a chance to censor anything they disagree with.

You are right! No matter what one has to say, their right to say it is still important.

[Nisha DSouza]

I strongly agree that everyone should defend their rights in their own way, but having an opinion doesn't mean that you should belittle the opinions of others.
If I find your words and opinions honest, I will stand by you. Especially if I don't disagree with you fundamentally. And even so, if you are right, then you free to express, and I will not criticize you.

SarahZ, I wholeheartedly agree with what you said here. Even if we disagree with someone's opinion, they still deserve the right to express it without fear of any repercussions.

[Nisha DSouza]

So, yes, from a western perspective, the Tiananmen Square massacre obviously violated the human rights of protesters. Then again, in a world with over 300 million people living in abject poverty, it would seem that rules that create and enforce rights are not very influential.

Ultimately, the progressive agenda is to gentrify the world, to ever more obscure the fact that all life needs to kill and exploit other life to survive. The wild is nasty, and reducing people's exposure to nature's terrors is the right thing to do. This requires order, control. Not saying I agree, but it seems to me that the CCP's attitude regarding the massacre is they were breaking eggs so to b able to make an omelette, so to speak. They needed order, they sought control, and they wasted no time in obtaining it. Then again, how many people in non-western nations have been killed for their political persuasion. Between Yemen and Syria alone, there's almost a million dead. South Sudan is a killing field. Severe civil strife is hell.

Hi Sy Borg,

I may be mistaken, but it almost sounds as if you condone CCP's actions. If that's so, I respect your opinion but would you care to elaborate on why you think that way?

[Nisha DSouza]

In some countries the choices seems to be stability or anarchy and violence. It will be interesting to see how much free speech there will be in Syria when/if the Islamists take over from Assad.

Unfortunately, in some countries, the situation is pretty grim when it comes to freedom of speech.