₦airaland Forum

dvkot:
What exactly is freedom of speech @Obedience40
Let's use Russia as an example, there are about 100m people there and all of them are talking and speaking, going about with their daily live style.
Same with China over a billion people, just doing their thing.
If there's no freedom of speech they for all become dumb.

So tell me what exactly is your freedom of speech

WriteerNg:
⚡Turkish Foreign Minister Fidan:

Netanyahu will be drowned in the blood of the people he condemned to starvation, murdered, and had snipers target with daily quotas just for pleasure.

Turkish Foreign Minister Fidan:

Netanyahu will be drowned in the blood of the people he condemned to starvation, murdered, and had snipers target with daily quotas just for pleasure. pic.twitter.com/SH9RiMKCFF

— Clash Report (@clashreport) August 9, 2025

Gbadebo19:
.
See kôw tryna form philosopher
This thread will ever be the best thing that has ever happened to you.

We will keep doing our own best.

Freedom of speech is not whether you can talk or not, it is about whether you are allowed to say what your mind wanted to say and what you really want to say according to the limits allowed by law.

Imagine it this way:
Freedom of speech is the right to express one self according to the limits of the law. Therefore, a person's freedom of speech ends where the interest of the state begins to be jeopardized or where it starts to transgress or offend another person's. For instance, the fact that a person has freedom of speech does not mean they can make seditious statement against the state, some statements can also be considered treasonous against the state. Constituting public disturbances can also be a limit to freedom of speech. For instance, in a state like Saudi Arabia, you cannot go out and start shouting "Jesus is Lord". It is an offence to the state as well as a disturbance of public peace. I think same should apply in the Vatican city.
As for individuals, an individual's freedom of speech ends when they begin to make libelous or slanderous allegations against another.
If it is against the state, it is a criminal offense and the individual can be arrested. If against an individual, it is a tort. If it is against the office of an individual, it is mostly considered as against the state as well. In Nigeria, saying a person is incompetent in their job is a slander, saying a woman has a contagious disease is a slander and many more. Of course, truth of statement will not make the person liable. But saying such is a tort.

Therefore, insulting Bola Ahmed Tinubu is not the same as insulting the President of Nigeria. Both of them are two different persons. I brought this example to explain why the individual that heckled at Von der Leyen could have been whisked away by security. Von der Leyen herself could sue him separately and likewise her office could sue him if there is an EU law permitting such. Therefore, he could answer two separate cases for a singular act.

Now to the issue at hand,

When you go through Twitter and social media, you see several individuals give their take on POTUS. They criticize, insult, praise and express themselves on how they feel on his government. They can also organize protests if they want to force a change. And even if they are arrested for doing it, they get access to a court that can decide whether they actually crossed their boundary on freedom of speech or not.

In Russia, China and NK that you adore,
Can anyone criticize Pootin, Xi or Kim?
Whether they do good or bad, the citizens MUST live by their decisions, no protest that condemn them, no pressure groups, nothing. There isn't even anything like a court that determines whether or not it was true. They are left at the mercy of the dictator. And when I say court, I mean a place where trials are conducted in public view, not like the ones that was done to Navalny where reporters and observers were barred from Knowing what was happening indoors.

The case of Edward Snowden was never about freedom of speech. Edward Snowden raised a defence of him being concerned about the ethical part of running such a program which never stood ground. It was a pure case of espionage and a pure criminal offence against the state. Edward knew his freedom of speech didn't allow him to commit espionage and that was why he raised the defence of ethical condition.

Placing limits on human rights cuts across all of human rights, not just freedom of speech alone. The right to free movement does not mean you can trespass on other people's property. The right to life does not mean you will not be dealt the capital punishment if you take another's life. The freedom of association does not mean you can join proscribed organizations or secret cults.

If after all these, you still come again with another of your .....ish, I will finally understand why Jesus said: "It is finished."

Mikasaobi:
I agree with you on Snowden but Julian Assange case doesn’t make sense. There was no collusion between him and Chelsea, Chelsea mailed him the classified information and he published it, how’s that espionage. He has the right to publish it because freedom of press in the first amendment protects him. Just imagine you set up a mail and tell people to send you tips on corruption, then the USA calls it espionage. It doesn’t make sense to me.

dvkot:
What exactly is freedom of speech @Obedience40
Let's use Russia as an example, there are about 100m people there and all of them are talking and speaking, going about with their daily live style.
Same with China over a billion people, just doing their thing.
If there's no freedom of speech they for all become dumb.

So tell me what exactly is your freedom of speech

23jerryking:
I'll give no attention-seeking low life such privilege. He's not worth a sec of my time.

Mikasaobi:
I agree with you on Snowden but Julian Assange case doesn’t make sense. There was no collusion between him and Chelsea, Chelsea mailed him the classified information and he published it, how’s that espionage. He has the right to publish it because freedom of press in the first amendment protects him. Just imagine you set up a mail and tell people to send you tips on corruption, then the USA calls it espionage. It doesn’t make sense to me.

Gbadebo19:
.
See kôw tryna form philosopher
This thread will ever be the best thing that has ever happened to you.

We will keep doing our own best.

Freedom of speech is not whether you can talk or not, it is about whether you are allowed to say what your mind wanted to say and what you really want to say according to the limits allowed by law.

Imagine it this way:
Freedom of speech is the right to express one self according to the limits of the law. Therefore, a person's freedom of speech ends where the interest of the state begins to be jeopardized or where it starts to transgress or offend another person's. For instance, the fact that a person has freedom of speech does not mean they can make seditious statement against the state, some statements can also be considered treasonous against the state. Constituting public disturbances can also be a limit to freedom of speech. For instance, in a state like Saudi Arabia, you cannot go out and start shouting "Jesus is Lord". It is an offence to the state as well as a disturbance of public peace. I think same should apply in the Vatican city.
As for individuals, an individual's freedom of speech ends when they begin to make libelous or slanderous allegations against another.
If it is against the state, it is a criminal offense and the individual can be arrested. If against an individual, it is a tort. If it is against the office of an individual, it is mostly considered as against the state as well. In Nigeria, saying a person is incompetent in their job is a slander, saying a woman has a contagious disease is a slander and many more. Of course, truth of statement will not make the person liable. But saying such is a tort.

Therefore, insulting Bola Ahmed Tinubu is not the same as insulting the President of Nigeria. Both of them are two different persons. I brought this example to explain why the individual that heckled at Von der Leyen could have been whisked away by security. Von der Leyen herself could sue him separately and likewise her office could sue him if there is an EU law permitting such. Therefore, he could answer two separate cases for a singular act.

Now to the issue at hand,

When you go through Twitter and social media, you see several individuals give their take on POTUS. They criticize, insult, praise and express themselves on how they feel on his government. They can also organize protests if they want to force a change. And even if they are arrested for doing it, they get access to a court that can decide whether they actually crossed their boundary on freedom of speech or not.

In Russia, China and NK that you adore,
Can anyone criticize Pootin, Xi or Kim?
Whether they do good or bad, the citizens MUST live by their decisions, no protest that condemn them, no pressure groups, nothing. There isn't even anything like a court that determines whether or not it was true. They are left at the mercy of the dictator. And when I say court, I mean a place where trials are conducted in public view, not like the ones that was done to Navalny where reporters and observers were barred from Knowing what was happening indoors.

The case of Edward Snowden was never about freedom of speech. Edward Snowden raised a defence of him being concerned about the ethical part of running such a program which never stood ground. It was a pure case of espionage and a pure criminal offence against the state. Edward knew his freedom of speech didn't allow him to commit espionage and that was why he raised the defence of ethical condition.

Placing limits on human rights cuts across all of human rights, not just freedom of speech alone. The right to free movement does not mean you can trespass on other people's property. The right to life does not mean you will not be dealt the capital punishment if you take another's life. The freedom of association does not mean you can join proscribed organizations or secret cults.

If after all these, you still come again with another of your .....ish, I will finally understand why Jesus said: "It is finished."

Obedience40:
You have made a Judicious pick of not engaging that fellow, bravo!! 👏

obedience4:
What are writing here?? Can you even read and comprehend what you wrote??

Freedom of speech isn't the ability not to use your mouth, dude are you in kindergarten??

shoodboi2:
Freedom of speech = When you say what they like.

No freedom of speech = When you say what they don't like.

Gbadebo19:
On Julian Assange, I will like to answer this based on what I read about him. Regarding Chelsea, there is something that is called conspiracy in law. And there is something called test of reasonability. Now, let's ask ourselves: "Did Julian Assange knew or was supposed to know that the contents of the mail were not supposed to be for public view?. Your answer is as good as mine. In fact, the charge of the US government against Assange was conspiracy to commit computer intrusion related to the leaks provided by Chelsea Manning. And in 2019 and 2020), another charge against Assange was unsealed by the US govt and it was still based on conspiracy with hackers in violation of the Espionage act.

In short, the charge against Assange was conspiracy to commit espionage.

The point where you are getting it wrong is that you are assuming that the act has to be committed specifically by the individual before it qualifies as the offence. The conspiracy to commit a crime is usually considered as an incomplete offence and usually carries a lesser punishment. However, depending on the country, it may be treated as a principal offence.

WritterNg:
⚡Pakistan’s Army Chief, Field Marshal Asim Munir:

We are a nuclear armed nation, if we think we are going down, we'll take half the world down with us.

dvkot:
Are you minding them...They tell you there's freedom of speech but you can't say some certain things.
As long as a your speech is being moderated online or offline whether you are in China, UK or USA. Then there's no freedom of speech in that country. Freedom of speech has no limits.

dvkot:
Then what is freedom of speech mate, please tell me. Tell me the freedom of speech people in UK are enjoying that people in Russia/China are not

Mikasaobi:
You’re starting to sound like a lawyer with your acrobatic semantics. There was no conspiracy, no collusion, no espionage and no crime. He simply published what he received. It’s the same first amendment that prevented prosecution of the journalist who published communications of Trump officials in signal chat. It doesn’t matter if a nuclear submarine location was in that chat, he/she is protected by the law because someone mistakenly added him . Any other charge against Assange is bull s..t and after reading your lawyer like post I think you know but you’re just making a case for the USA government. It’s ok I understand.