Skip to main content

Freedom of Opinion and Free Speech

TAKEN FROM : A THESIS ON FREEDOM OF SPEECH. By Nyron Medina
Freedom of Opinion and Free Speech
1. Concerning Freedom of Opinion, we are told the following very important truth by John Stuart Mill in his work Utilitarianism.
“But the peculiar evil of the silencing the expression of an opinion is, that it is robbing the human race; posterity a well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it. If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the 
opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a 
benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision 
with error.” p.85.

2. Man’s assumption of infallibility is explained by the suppression of the freedom of opinion. 
Again we are told by Mill.

“First: the opinion which it is attempted to suppress by authority may possibly true. Those who desire to suppress it, of course deny its truth; but they are not infallible. They have no authority to decide the question for all mankind, and exclude every other person from the means of judging. To refuse a hearing to an opinion, because they are sure that it is false, is to assume that their certainty is the same thing as absolute certainly. All silencing of discussion is an assumption of infallibility.” Ibid p.85. 
3. Thus it is evident that when men seek to curb the opinions of others by transgressing freedom of opinion, they do the following: 
(a) Rob humanity of the opportunity of exchanging error for the truth if the opinion is truth. 
(b) Rob humanity of receiving a lively impression and clarity of the truth by the collision of the truth with error, if the opinion is error. 
(c) Robbing those who are deceived by the opinion of the opportunity to exercise rational 
thought to dispel the error by examining it with truth. 
(e) Assuming that they who by law forbid the opinion are the absolute possessors of the 
truth and are thus infallible. 
(f) Taking to themselves the Right of God to be the source and revealer of truth, and thus 
to be the absolute Judge of all error or falsehood. 
4. Why did we suddenly digressed into dealing with freedom of opinion when we were dealing with freedom of speech?

Here are the reasons: 
(a) Free speech is attacked by attacking the undesirable opinion the speech expresses.

(b) It is undesirable knowledge that persecutors usually seek to extinguish by telling the propagators that they must not speak it, this is how freedom of speech comes under attack.
5. Free Speech which is a gift of God; which humanity is born with, and communicates the 
following: 
(a) Thoughts that are hidden in the mind. 
(b) Beliefs held as true to the individual. 
(c) Opinions held that may be true or not. 
(d) Conscientious convictions given by the revelation of the Holy Spirit. 
(e) Mental values however good or bad. 
(f) Ideas formulated in the minds of man, etc. 
6. Speech touches all spheres of human activity, here are some examples. 
(a) Government. 
(b) Politics. 
(c) Religion. 
(d) Economics. 
(e) Moral Behavior. 
(f) Labor. 
(g) Sport. 
(h) Entertainment, etc.

12. Free Speech may touch or embrace the following various number of moods: 
(a) Pleasing speech. 
(b) Offensive speech. 
(c) Condemnatory speech. 
(d) Blasphemous speech. 
(e) Incite-ful speech.

13. There is something called Offensive Speech. The speech may or may not be really offensive, or maybe offensive to some people, and not to others. However to most modern societies offensive speech may refer to the following differences, more or less. 
(a) Critical: to some people criticism is offensive 
(b) Inciteful: most people find it offensive to incite someone to do harm to another. 
(c) Ridicule: some people find ridicule to be offensive especially based upon what is being 
ridiculed. 
(d) Insult: most people find insulting speech offensive 
(e) Threats: most people also find threatening speech offensive, especially when they are 
threatened. 
(f) Blasphemy: dependent upon what religion a person may belong to, hence its concept of 
blasphemy, most people find blasphemy offensive. What may be blasphemous and thus offensive to some may not be to others. 
(g) Slander: to each person that is being slandered, such speech is offensive to him. 
(h) Obscene: saying immoral things about children of a sexual nature, and certain swear 
words are most often offensive speech. 
(i) Deception: some speech that deceived people, when the people become aware that they were deceived, this speech becomes offensive to such people. Also, deceptively crying “fire! “and such like speech, in a crowded building, calculated to cause useless panic that can damage people, is highly offensive to all. 
14. Offensive speech that is truly offensive is so because it is against the Rights and Freedoms of 
others. Such are the following: 
(a) Inciting speech. 
(b) Slanderous speech. 
(c) Threatening speech. 
(d) Obscene speech. 
(e) Deceptive speech (the exclamation type). 
15. The following types of speech, while they are labeled as offensive to some, are not intendedto be and neither is capable of injuring people, thus should they should never be subjected to any form of restrictive legislation. 
(a) Critical speech. 
(b) Ridiculing speech. 
(c) Insulting speech. 
(d) Blasphemous speech.

(e) Deceptive speech (the ordinary misleading speech) 
16. There is a speech in modern societies usually called “Hate Speech” and is subject to some type of penal legislation. They are: 
(a) Speech that is critical of a race, religion, group, of sexual behavior that has state 
protection. 
(b) Speech that is critical of or express skepticism about the holocaust. 
(c) Speech that incites others to do harm to a race, people, and/or group based on religion 
or sexual and other behavior. 
(d) Speech that threatens others for whatever reason, especially because of race, religion 
or sexual behavior. 
(e) Speech that exposes a race or group of people of being in conspiracy to rule the world 
through political and economic hegemony. 
17. But hate speech is a term used in law to create “hate crimes”. Hate crimes laws do the 
following: 
(a) Penalize the concept and emotions of hate in the mind behind the infraction to cover 
the mental hate. 
(b) Hate crimes laws penalize the content of the mind, something only God has the 
authority to do. 
(c) They make certain regular speech illegal because of the concepts and emotions behind 
it. This would not seem logical to do, if the concept of hate crimes did not exist, as it 
would evidently be against freedom speech. 
(d) Hate crimes laws protect only some groups and members of society while others are 
not given the same protection. This transgresses the legal republican principle of 
“equality of all under law”. 
18. Speech that is already illegal and do not need hate crimes law to make them “hate speech” 
are the following: 
(a) Inciting speech, and 
(b) Threatening speech. 
19. Speech that is deceptively called “hate speech” and thus should never be subject to hate 
crimes legislation are the following: 
(a) Speech that is critical of a race, religion, group or sexual behavior. 
(b) Speech that criticize or express skepticism of the holocaust.

Speech that exposes a race or group of people of being in conspiracy to politically and 
economically rule the world. 
20. Hate crimes legislations should never exist because they do the following: 
(a) Target free speech making it a crime because of the ideas and opinions expressed. 
(b) Target concepts and emotions of hate in the mind which only God can adequately and 
justly do in the judgment. 
(c) Give increased penalty to acts that are already illegal by law, because of the “hate” 
concept and emotions behind those acts.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

WHAT OUR INQUIRY ABOUT OURSELVES SHOULD BE?

WHAT OUR INQUIRY ABOUT OURSELVES  SHOULD BE? We are in the very last days, we are told that the last controversy will be very short. “We are standing on the threshold of great and solemn events. Prophecies are fulfilling. The last great conflict will be short, but terrible. Old controversies will be revived. New controversies will arise. We have a great work to do. Our ministerial work must not cease. The last warning must be given to the world. There is a special power in the presentation of the truth at the present time. How long will it last? Only a little while.” Ellen G. White, Selected Messages bk. 3, pg. 419. And in view of the lateness of time, what should be the inquiry of everyone? We are told: “The inquiry of everyone should be ‘whose am I? To whom do I owe allegiance? Is my heart renewed? Is my soul reformed? Are my sins forgiven? Will they be blotted out when the time of refreshing shall come?” Ibid, pg. 419. We must needs examine ourselves to see if we are
Post a Comment
Read more

DID ELLEN G. WHITE EVER CALL THE S.D.A. CHURCH BABYLON IN ANY WAY? BY NYRON MEDINA

In the Bible is brought to view the following statement: “And after these things I  saw another angel come down from heaven, having great power; and the earth was  lightened with his glory. And he cried mightily with a strong voice, saying,  Babylon the great is fallen, is fallen, and is become the habitation of devils, and the hold of every foul spirit, and a cage of every unclean and hateful bird. For all  nations have drunk of the wine of the wrath of her fornication, and the kings of the  earth have committed fornication with her, and the merchants of the earth are  waxed rich through the abundance of her delicacies. And I heard another voice  from heaven, saying, Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her  sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues.” Revelation 18:1-4. Of this Scripture  we are told that it speaks about the Church, fallen because of sins. “In amazement  they [the people] hear the testimony that Babylon is the church,
1 comment
Read more

IMPUTED AND IMPARTED RIGHTEOUSNESS EXPLAINED By Nyron Medina

IMPUTED AND IMPARTED RIGHTEOUSNESS  EXPLAINED By Nyron Medina Statement of the case 1. Imputed and imparted righteousness are usually seen as different things in apostate  theology; they are presented as happening either successively or at the very same time,  but they are presented as two different salvific functions.  “In this most illuminating paragraph, the writer traces two distinct phases in the process  of our salvation—two complementary aspects of the plan of redemption—which are in a  certain sense successive, but at the same time simultaneous; two different operations of  the same righteousness of Christ, which alone can satisfy the demands of divine justice  and make saints of us. Let us analyze in outline form these two phases:  A. THE RIGHTEOUSNESS OF CHRIST BY WHICH WE ARE JUSTIFIED.  1. It is imputed to us, which is, credited, granted freely without our earning it.  2. It provides our right to heaven. It is the only merit we can claim. 
Post a Comment
Read more