Yeah, I see that term hurled around alot these days...strange thing is, not everyone is granted this freedom to it's fullest extent, atleast not without fear of repercussions.
And yet there are a selected few who may use it at will and suffer no loss to themselves(but bringing great grief to those whom they've used it against).
Freedom of speech...has to be an irony in terms. I mean people in a society could not live in peace if everyone was allowed to say (or do) whatever they wanted. So why bother with such a term when it cannot apply to humanity as a whole? Why not replace it with "Allowance of limited speech"? By golly it would create much less conflict than the whole "Freedom of Speech" deal.
Everyday I see someone exercising their right to "Freedom of speech" in one country and offending individuals living in another country. Sure as heck, isn't the surest path to obtaining World Peace.
I understand the neccesity of not limiting human thought and having the freedom to express an opinion, but some people just do not have the discretion to even own an opinion.
There has to be a limit to what a person should express openly, after all (no matter how much we'd like it to be true for ourselves) the world does NOT revolve around any single individual, and hence it is essential that we possess a reasonable amount of respect for the opinions and beliefs of others.
Ofcourse, that does not always ensure that someone will not be offended by us, but atleast it's a step in the right direction.
