₦airaland Forum

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.

Alamkiir:
Suleiman al-Obeid, 41, the “Palestinian Pelé”, was killed by Israeli fire while waiting for aid in Gaza.

UEFA stayed silent on how, where and why he died.

SonOfWords:
I'll ignore the condescending tone in your second paragraph just for the benefit of this discourse, but was it not in your eutopic America that the FBI was kicking down civilian doors over mere social media posts and comments?

Whether you chose to call it checks/balances or regulations, it addresses the same issue of all world governments cracking down on what they consider to be "abuse of that right and/or dissent".

Gbadebo19:
FBI broke in and kicked down doors. The said individuals were arrested. How many of them are in jail? For the FBI to have been involved, there is no doubt that the actions of such individual or individuals was considered a crime.

Now, how many of those said individuals are in jail? Answer me.
What saved them? Nothing but that the court considered their utterances and post to be moderate (Freedom of speech).

In a country like NK, we both know those people would never see sunlight again. Kim Jong Un and Pootin would kpai them if they did what they did in America.

E no go tire us. We will keep doing our best.
As long as what an individual has done or said is considered a threat to the security of the state, FBI can do it.

Even in Nigeria, security agencies have the right to break in and break out of any apartment if they reasonably suspect that an individual has committed a crime.

So, your soft spot of breaking down people's door is a well accepted practice in most parts of the world.

I perfectly understand your argument about government using law to crack down on what they consider to be "abuse of that right"

This argument of your boils down to a shallow understanding of government or democracy.
If your position is correct, kindly tell me at least one instance where the restriction placed on freedom of speech or human rights in general is NOT reasonable in a TRULY democratic society

Of you know you can't answer the question, just pass and don't start with your usual shenanigan of I can't do this and that.

This is why discussing with you is horrendous and tiresome.

You're using ten paragraphs to dance around with words only to make the same points I already pointed out, and lucidly too.

Wetin dey worry you sef?! Is it that you just love to argue ?

SonOfWords:
This is why discussing with you is horrendous and tiresome.

You're using ten paragraphs to dance around with words only to make the same points I already pointed out, and lucidly too.

Wetin dey worry you sef?! Is it that you just love to argue ?

SonOfWords:
I'll ignore the condescending tone in your second paragraph just for the benefit of this discourse, but was it not in your eutopic America that the FBI was kicking down civilian doors over mere social media posts and comments?

Whether you chose to call it checks/balances or regulations, it addresses the same issue of all world governments cracking down on what they consider to be "abuse of that right and/or dissent".

Gbadebo19:
By your first paragraph, are you implying that the poster you are referring to does n🚫t have komon sëñße? Na honest question ooo

Even though say na r🚫biß you talk by bringing checks and balance into the equation, we will at least agree that u are n🚫t totally løst in Hades. There is still some hope of redemption.

shoodboi2:
Using AI to decide on the absoluteness of freedom of speech in order to justify your bias is not going to your position. And throwing yabs from the sidelines isn’t going to help either.

“Freedom of speech is the right to communicate one's opinions and ideas without government censorship or restraint.“

When a government begins to use laws to counter your opinions and ideas, do we still call that freedom of speech? The answer is no. So, freedom of speech should be absolute.

Governments either allow people the right to communicate their opinions and ideas without needing to come in to censor it, or they do not. There is no middle ground.

With that said, your statement about freedom of speech not being absolute is not universally agreed upon. So, don’t try to make it appear as if it is.

The screenshot below is a real human-written webpage that clearly states that “Some do not regard freedom of speech as absolute.”

You are among those “some.” Meanwhile, I am not as I regard it as being absolute. The joke is on you.

Gbadebo19:
What exactly is difficult in answering the question: Do you not realize that for your point to be valid, such crack down or restriction on freedom must be seen as "unreasonable"? Only then can you validly say that the government is using the law to crack down on what they consider an "abuse to that right"

SonOfWords:
Oboy, whatever you're going on about, bears no conformity to the precise points I raised with my first comment on this freedom of speech discourse.

But it's no surprise because it won't be a complete day if gbadebo does not mischievously attempt to reel at least one person into an unreasonable and irrelevant argument.

23jerryking:
And more concerning is the fact that this claims are coming from the camp of the "intelligent ones".

obedience4:
Freedoms can never be absolute, there's freedom of movement in Nigeria right?? A Nigerian citizen is at liberty to travel anywhere in the Nigerian state, those that freedom of movement gives one the right to walk into the presidential villa without you been invited??

Even right to life isn't absolute, the moment one commits a crime, The government has the power to take it from you.

Do you know the kind of chaos if the freedom of speech is absolute?? I can make defamatory claims about you won't be able to seek redress in court because, i am only exercising my freedom of speech

If Freedom of speech is absolute, why are they libel cases flying everywhere

Alamkiir:
Suleiman al-Obeid, the “Palestinian Pele,” lost his home in earlier bombardment and was living in a tent with his wife and five children before being killed by what his family says was an Israeli tank shell while queuing for food.

shoodboi2:
So, what you are saying now is that the government gets to determine what should be considered freedom and what shouldn’t be. So let me ask: if a government is the one to determine what should be freedom, then is that freedom?

Let us be frank with ourselves: There is no freedom of speech anywhere in the world. What you have instead are limitations to what you can and cannot say. That is not freedom.

shoodboi2:
So, what you are saying now is that the government gets to determine what should be considered freedom and what shouldn’t be. So let me ask: if a government is the one to determine what should be freedom, then is that freedom?

Let us be frank with ourselves: There is no freedom of speech anywhere in the world. What you have instead are limitations to what you can and cannot say. That is not freedom.

SonOfWords:
No, freedom of speech cannot be and is not ABSOLUTE in any society the world over. It is a recipe for swift chaos and you don't even need internet-sourced materials to discuss this, common sense is enough.

The difference lies in the methods and extents of implementation of checks and balances by various governments, which anyone in his right senses knows you can never draw a parallel line between the North Korean approach and that of the United States.

shoodboi2:
Allow me to rephrase my argument about freedom of speech being absolute: What I mean is that there is no freedom of speech anywhere in the world. That is why I said freedom of speech is either there or it is not.

What we have instead are limitations on what you can and cannot say. The west calls these limitations “freedom” but that is just another political word.

Specifically, it is a glittering generality, which refers to words used to appeal to people’s emotions. Words like democracy, values, and freedom are all glittering generalities. They appeal to emotions and have different meanings to different people.

It is true that “freedom of speech” (if we can call it that) has limitations everywhere in the world. But these limitations are more about protecting the government and less about protecting the freedoms of people.

Many of the pro-west supporters will use arguments about threats and violence to justify these limitations. But these are extremes. Plus, let us not forget that at no point in human history has anyone ever considered threatening someone or calling for violence against a person or group of people as “freedom of speech.” So, that’s that.

The issue is that the west has always positioned itself as the gatekeeper of freedom of speech and has repeatedly used it for morality and propaganda purposes. But we have seen the same west repeatedly arrest people for making statements that don't sit well with them.

For instance, during the coronation of King Charles, multiple people were arrested for protesting his crowning and daring to question the existence of the monarchy. If that happened in Saudi, Iran, Russia, or China, we all know what the western newspaper headlines will say about freedom of speech. But it happened in the UK, so it’s all good.

Overall, freedom of speech should be absolute to be sincere. But it is not absolute anywhere in the world, and so it doesn’t exist. Instead, what we call “freedom of speech” is basically another word to describe what the government allows and doesn’t allow.

That is not a problem on its own but becomes one when the west continues to call out other countries over their lack of “freedom of speech” while the west itself continues to arrest people, sanction them, imprison them, threaten them, fire them from jobs, and refuse them their college certificate for daring to speak up on issues and events that implicate the west.

In the end, freedom of speech is just another lie. What we call “freedom of speech” is less a universal right and more a selectively applied privilege that is granted when convenient, revoked when uncomfortable, and wrapped in language meant to disguise the difference.

shoodboi2:
Allow me to rephrase my argument about freedom of speech being absolute: What I mean is that there is no freedom of speech anywhere in the world. That is why I said freedom of speech is either there or it is not.

What we have instead are limitations on what you can and cannot say. The west calls these limitations “freedom” but that is just another political word.

Specifically, it is a glittering generality, which refers to words used to appeal to people’s emotions. Words like democracy, values, and freedom are all glittering generalities. They appeal to emotions and have different meanings to different people.

It is true that “freedom of speech” (if we can call it that) has limitations everywhere in the world. But these limitations are more about protecting the government and less about protecting the freedoms of people.

Many of the pro-west supporters will use arguments about threats and violence to justify these limitations. But these are extremes. Plus, let us not forget that at no point in human history has anyone ever considered threatening someone or calling for violence against a person or group of people as “freedom of speech.” So, that’s that.

The issue is that the west has always positioned itself as the gatekeeper of freedom of speech and has repeatedly used it for morality and propaganda purposes. But we have seen the same west repeatedly arrest people for making statements that don't sit well with them.

For instance, during the coronation of King Charles, multiple people were arrested for protesting his crowning and daring to question the existence of the monarchy. If that happened in Saudi, Iran, Russia, or China, we all know what the western newspaper headlines will say about freedom of speech. But it happened in the UK, so it’s all good.

Overall, freedom of speech should be absolute to be sincere. But it is not absolute anywhere in the world, and so it doesn’t exist. Instead, what we call “freedom of speech” is basically another word to describe what the government allows and doesn’t allow.

That is not a problem on its own but becomes one when the west continues to call out other countries over their lack of “freedom of speech” while the west itself continues to arrest people, sanction them, imprison them, threaten them, fire them from jobs, and refuse them their college certificate for daring to speak up on issues and events that implicate the west.

In the end, freedom of speech is just another lie. What we call “freedom of speech” is less a universal right and more a selectively applied privilege that is granted when convenient, revoked when uncomfortable, and wrapped in language meant to disguise the difference.

Alamkiir:
Half the world? How many nuclear war head una get, wey una small nyash dey shake

Watcharena:
Pastor, it seems your thread is lonely thus you need to find attention elsewhere