Bikers seem to have a keen appreciation of freedom.
Freedom of speech is being able to speak freely without censorship.
The right to freedom of speech is guaranteed under international law through numerous human-rights instruments, notably under Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, although implementation remains lacking in many countries.
The synonymous term 'freedom of expression' is sometimes preferred, since the right is not confined to verbal speech but is understood to protect any act of seeking, receiving and imparting information or ideas, regardless of the medium used.
In practice, the right to freedom of speech is not absolute in any country, although the degree of freedom varies greatly. For instance, the United States First Amendment theoretically grants absolute freedom, placing the burden upon the state to demonstrate when (if) a limitation of this freedom is necessary. In almost all liberal democracies, it is generally recognized that restrictions should be the exception and free expression the rule; nevertheless, compliance with this principle is often lacking.
Industrialized countries also have varying approaches to balance freedom with order.
An excellent recent example of the need to maintain order can be found in the 'The Junkyard' forum of this website in a thread titled 'Last Days of America'.
This thread was opened to advise and discuss various aspects of the operations of the Federal Reserve Bank of America and solicited expressions ranging from support, enlightenment, disbelief, hopeless resignation and passionate objection from various respondents.
This thread was originally located in a forum called 'The Burnout Pit' which is described as an anything goes forum yet it was closed by the moderators of the forum when two particular respondents verbally abused each other and finally threatened physical assault on each other over a disputed point of history.
Threatening to commit an assault (even at a future unspecified time) is against the law and is therefore a legitimate reason for a moderator to balance freedom with order. In this particular instant it would seem warranted that the two participants be excluded from the thread on those grounds. Or would it? Isn't that restricting their freedom of expression?
However, I would contend that closing the thread, thereby excluding all participants, is a violation of free speech and freedom of expression. This view is shared by other forum readers (not just respondents) who communicated their views and disappointment via private email.
There have been other threads consigned to 'The Junkyard' that remained open in spite of similar behaviour by some participating respondents.
So in view of this I must ask the question, "Do we still believe in and practice the 1st amendment right?"
The right to free speech is not free.
It carries a reciprocal obligation to defend others right to free speech whether or not you agree with what is expressed.
"If we don't believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don't believe in it at all." - Noam Chomsky
So, is the the first amendment dead?
Do we see universal rights fade into history by ignoring them to death?
Freedom of speech is being able to speak freely without censorship.
The right to freedom of speech is guaranteed under international law through numerous human-rights instruments, notably under Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, although implementation remains lacking in many countries.
The synonymous term 'freedom of expression' is sometimes preferred, since the right is not confined to verbal speech but is understood to protect any act of seeking, receiving and imparting information or ideas, regardless of the medium used.
In practice, the right to freedom of speech is not absolute in any country, although the degree of freedom varies greatly. For instance, the United States First Amendment theoretically grants absolute freedom, placing the burden upon the state to demonstrate when (if) a limitation of this freedom is necessary. In almost all liberal democracies, it is generally recognized that restrictions should be the exception and free expression the rule; nevertheless, compliance with this principle is often lacking.
Industrialized countries also have varying approaches to balance freedom with order.
An excellent recent example of the need to maintain order can be found in the 'The Junkyard' forum of this website in a thread titled 'Last Days of America'.
This thread was opened to advise and discuss various aspects of the operations of the Federal Reserve Bank of America and solicited expressions ranging from support, enlightenment, disbelief, hopeless resignation and passionate objection from various respondents.
This thread was originally located in a forum called 'The Burnout Pit' which is described as an anything goes forum yet it was closed by the moderators of the forum when two particular respondents verbally abused each other and finally threatened physical assault on each other over a disputed point of history.
Threatening to commit an assault (even at a future unspecified time) is against the law and is therefore a legitimate reason for a moderator to balance freedom with order. In this particular instant it would seem warranted that the two participants be excluded from the thread on those grounds. Or would it? Isn't that restricting their freedom of expression?
However, I would contend that closing the thread, thereby excluding all participants, is a violation of free speech and freedom of expression. This view is shared by other forum readers (not just respondents) who communicated their views and disappointment via private email.
There have been other threads consigned to 'The Junkyard' that remained open in spite of similar behaviour by some participating respondents.
So in view of this I must ask the question, "Do we still believe in and practice the 1st amendment right?"
The right to free speech is not free.
It carries a reciprocal obligation to defend others right to free speech whether or not you agree with what is expressed.
"If we don't believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don't believe in it at all." - Noam Chomsky
So, is the the first amendment dead?
Do we see universal rights fade into history by ignoring them to death?
Last edited:
