Only logged in members can reply and interact with the post.
Join SimilarWorlds for FREE »

Freedom of speech?

Why is that when you criticize Christianity, Islam, Hinduism etc (religion, not individuals). It's a matter of freedom of speech but when you question Judaism and Zionism, it becomes a matter of anti-semitism only? Why not freedom of speech applies in that subject?
This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
CaptainCanadia · 41-45, M
You think freedom of speech means people can't disagree with you?
MorningStar · 31-35, M
I didn't say that
CaptainCanadia · 41-45, M
No, but you somehow don't think you're allowed to complain about Judaism or Zionism. Sure you can. You legally have that right. Other people can call you an anti-semite and tell you to shut up. They also have the right. That's how freedom of speech works.
Actually, the intent of the constitutional right of "freedom of speech" simply means you have the right to speak out against the United States government with out fear of reprisal.

Freedom of speech is the right to articulate one's opinions and ideas without fear of government retaliation or censorship, or societal sanction.[1][2][3][4] The term freedom of expression is sometimes used synonymously, but includes any act of seeking, receiving and imparting information or ideas, regardless of the medium used.

The right to freedom of expression is recognized as a human right under article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and recognized in international human rights law in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). Article 19 of the ICCPR states that "everyone shall have the right to hold opinions without interference" and "everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice". Article 19 additionally states that the exercise of these rights carries "special duties and responsibilities" and may "therefore be subject to certain restrictions" when necessary "[f]or respect of the rights or reputation of others" or "[f]or the protection of national security or of public order (order public), or of public health or morals".[5][6]

Freedom of speech and expression are not absolute, and common limitations to freedom of speech relate to libel, slander, obscenity, pornography, sedition, incitement, fighting words, classified information, copyright violation, trade secrets, non-disclosure agreements, the right to privacy, the right to be forgotten, public security, and perjury. Justifications for such include the harm principle, proposed by John Stuart Mill in On Liberty, which suggests that: "the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others."[7] The idea of the "offense principle" is also used in the justification of speech limitations, describing the restriction on forms of expression deemed offensive to society, considering factors such as extent, duration, motives of the speaker, and ease with which it could be avoided.[7] With the evolution of the digital age, application of the freedom of speech becomes more controversial as new means of communication and restrictions arise, for example the Golden Shield Project, an initiative by Chinese government's Ministry of Public Security that filters potentially unfavorable data from foreign countries.

The right to freedom of expression includes the right to take and publish photographs of strangers in public areas without their permission or knowledge.[8][9]@TyphoidJerry: