G'day.

Below is what the forum members came up with when the IL forum started out on a free server...

THE INFINITE LOVE FORUM COMMUNITY PRINCIPLES

Freedom With Responsibility.

I am free to express Who I Am in any way that I choose to, knowing that I am responsible for that expression.

How I choose to BE and FEEL in relationship to what another member of the Forum Community has posted is my responsibility alone.

Therefore, I am fully responsible for the thoughts, actions and words that I choose to use to express Who I Am Being, and within this responsibility, I AM FREE.

This is a freedom that I lovingly share with all other Forum Community members.

... and is the 'take' we had on freedom of speech.

There is a lot expressed about freedom of speech by various advocates of it. Yet what is it ?

Is it the right to verbal self-expression in whatever manner that you choose to express yourself ?

Can any infringement upon such a verbal self-expression not be seen as a lack of a freedom of speech ?

I'd love to get some feedback on what other forum members believe freedom of speech entails and have a serious discussion about it.

I like the way that was worded... free speech does involve a sense of self responsibility, for both the good moments and the bad.

Nice topic

My thoughts.

Freedom of speech taken at its most literal means the freedom to say what one chooses in the manner one chooses to and where one chooses to say it.

Which is an honourable right to aspire to.

The problem I have found with rights and freedoms is that an indviduals rights will often infringe on anothers freedoms and rights - and who is to say whose right of freedom should supersede someone elses?

I think that the only way forward is to recognise that rights come with responsibilities and that we must 'own' our opinions - I cannot expect to go up to some random person and tell them I think that they should cover their head with a sack because their facial features offend me without getting a negative reaction - or without people using their freedom of speech to tell me that was not a nice thing to do.

I have found that outside of people under oppressive regimes - those who are angry at what they see as an infringement of their freedom of speech are actually angry that their viewpoint is seen as being hateful and do not like the reactions they are likely to get in response to their views. They complain of people expressing contrary views or arguing semantics when the reality is they have already said what they wish to.

I try and use my freedom of speech in a positive and respectful manner - most of the time I self censor as I would prefer not to offend or upset people - I do not feel that is an infringement of my freedom - rather it is something that encourages me to really think about what I wish to say and how I wish to say it.

I think most people have a 'line' - one side is freedom of speech - the other is something else which goes too far infringing anothers rights to not be abused, uncomfortable, generalised against or put in danger.

With rights come responsibilities. An essentially self moderating community would have no need to censor,

The two are interwoven, I don't recall experiencing free speech much but I'm all for both it and it's partner personal responsibility.

Freedom of speech IS the right to say what you want. The responsibility that comes with it is knowing when and where to say it.
Freedom of movement IS the right to go where you want. Not everyone wants you sat on their shoulders though.

oioioi wrote:
I agree and I would add that responsibility also involves how we say it. I would even say that it is the most important as we may put others in defense and they are not going to hear it.

I'd say the crux of freedom of speech is supporting the right of people saying that which you personally despise or violently disagree with. Everyone is in favour of freedom of speech for things they agree with or at least don't have any problem with.

But, like oioioi said, it's also about time, place and responsibility. Freedom of speech in a general societal sense does not preclude people's choice about having the sort of environment they want and setting their own boundaries in limited space. So for example I'd say on FOS grounds the right of, say, Stormfront to exist should be defended, but that does not mean every internet forum has to allow the sort of speech they have on there. You may support the right of people to argue, say, why shagging donkeys should be socially acceptable, but you may reserve the right to stop them spouting off about it round your house during Sunday dinner. The right to say what you want must be balanced with the right of people not to have it forced on them.

dogsmilk wrote:
I think I've used the Stormcunts analogy myself in the past.

I'll have to remember the donkey shagging one. Out of interest, for a friend (sketti0, would you know where one would go to discuss such matters?

oioioi wrote:
Good description

StarsChildren wrote:
G'day StarsChildren.

I've heard it expressed as 'owning our shit'. Ultimately, self-responsibility in how we express ourselves verbally (as well as physically and mentally) is empowering, for if we don't 'own it', how can we ever change it ?

Also, can we ever 'own' anything in reality apart from our own self-expression ?

It is the one thing that you can truly state as being yours, that you are the creator of. As our self-expression determines Who We Are choosing to Be, and we are a being as opposed to a doing, then 'owning' what it is that creates our being (our thoughts, actions, words) empowers us to Be all that we choose to Be in relationship to the life that surrounds us.

I AM ALL I AM wrote:
Very true, we're but passing tenants.

oioioi wrote:
Round my house during Sunday lunch is fine. But no demonstrations.

thoreau wrote:
G'day Thoreau.

Thank you for the well thought out reply.

It actually raises another issue ... that of rights.

If you so desired to approach me and state that I should cover my head with a sack, then I personally would consider this your 'right' to verbal self-expression. After all, it would state more about you than it does about me. Also, there's the old, sticks and stones may break my bones but names will never harm me.

By 'owning' our self-expression, whether verbal or otherwise, we empower ourselves by realising that no other individual has this ability, especially verbally (no one can speak for you, only you can do that) ... they have their own self-expression and it states EVERYTHING about Who They Are choosing to Be.

So, could our 'rights' simply be our self-expression ?

And apart from physical action, how can our self-expression impinge upon another individuals self-expression ?

Personally I have no issue with whatever any individual has to say, especially as I also consider myself free to express verbally what I think about what they have stated. After all, my words create for me who I choose to Be and no other individuals words can change that fact.

"rights come with responsibilities and we must 'own' our opinions" ... I think that we are definitely on the same page here, though our description is coming at it from a different angle.

Anyway, another issue, those that become offended by what another individual states. Claiming to be offended by what I've stated is a pathway to censorship of my self-expression. As much as I choose my words to convey a communication that doesn't offend some individuals sensibilities ... really, why should I give a flying fuck as to what another individual is offended by ?

Surely verbal self-expression is one of the key elements to individual freedom. So, if someone is attempting to curtail my verbal self-expression, then they are in fact attempting to curtail my individual freedom.

Only one individual (apart from spammers) has ever been banned on the IL forum ... it was for racial hatred. Anyone being continually derogatory, verbally abusive, etc, are restricted to The Toilet (where the shit goes ). Even that individual probably wouldn't have been banned except that we have Terms Of Service to adhere to. Ultimately it comes down to our willingness to interact with those that portray themselves in such a manner. Personally, I'd rather hang out with you and have a civil discussion than enter into any form of communication with someone that expresses racial hatred.

In other words, we can vote with our feet, as the saying goes. Or in this case, we can vote with our interaction, or lack thereof, with such individuals. This is especially so with internet forums ... hence the expression, don't feed the trolls.

dubmeup wrote:
G'day Dubmeup.

I think that you may well enjoy reading this below. I read it at the beginning of the book, The Fifth Sacred Thing, by Starhawk ... www.starhawk.org/writings/fifth-sacred-thing.html

DECLARATION OF THE FOUR SACRED THINGS

The earth is a living, conscious being. In company with cultures of many different times and places, we name these things as sacred: air, fire, water and earth.

Whether we see them as the breath, energy, blood and body of the Mother, or as the blessed gifts of a Creator, or as symbols of the interconnected systems that sustain life, we know that nothing can live without them.

To call these things sacred is to say that they have a value beyond their usefulness for human ends, that they themselves become the standards by which our acts, our economics, our laws and our purposes must be judged. No one has the right to appropriate them or profit from them at the expense of others. Any government that fails to protect them forfeits its legitimacy.

All people, all living things, are part of the earth life, and so are sacred. No one of us stands higher or lower than any other. Only justice can assure balance: only ecological balance can sustain freedom. Only in freedom can that fifth sacred thing we call spirit flourish in its full diversity.

To honour the sacred is to create conditions in which nourishment, sustenance, habitat, knowledge, freedom and beauty can thrive. To honour the sacred is to make love possible.

To this we dedicate our curiosity, our will, our courage, our silences and our voices. To this we dedicate our lives.

@iaaim (hope you dont mind the abbreviation) thanks for the reply am going to mull it over whilst I make the other halfs dinner - you raise some interesting points that I will be most definitely coming back to

oioioi wrote:
G'day Oioioi.

I'd add a third part to the when and where ... 'when, where and how to say it'..

How we express ourselves shows Who We Are choosing to Be, and it is the perception of Who We Are choosing to Be from which other individuals will then choose to interact with us, or not, in relationship to to our self-expression. If we get the 'how' correct, then the communication of our self-expression is completely comprehended by the other individual.

Making it easy to comprehend our self-expression puts the onus upon the other individual(s) to comprehend what IS being communicated so that misunderstandings do not happen.

ftil wrote:
G'day Ftil.

I should have read your post before responding to Oioioi, it would have saved me repeating the 'how' aspect.

dogsmilk wrote:
Hear that sketti? He'll even throw in lunch!

I AM ALL I AM wrote:
A fair and valid point.

Nice thread.

oioioi wrote:
Yep this is all good stuff, I like it