Global freedom declines for the 17th consecutive year.

[Twilight Hue]

NEW REPORT: Global Freedom Declines for 17th Consecutive Year, but May Be Approaching a Turning Point

The 50th edition of Freedom in the World also finds that attacks on freedom of expression have been a key driver of democratic erosion.

freedomhouse.org

The turning point remains to be seen.

The culprit of the decline is said to be primarily the attacks on freedom of expression in wake of more and more stringent control over press and social media.

 

[F1fan]

Is there a report on the number of people who abuse their rights and freedoms?

Generally to have a right in a society means that the citizens understands the responsibility that rights demand.
To use the freedom of speech against others as a weapon will minimize the range of that freedom. Social contracts are a delicate balance.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

Is there a report on the number of people who abuse their rights and freedoms?

Generally to have a right in a society means that the citizens understands the responsibility that rights demand.
To use the freedom of speech against others as a weapon will minimize the range of that freedom. Social contracts are a delicate balance.

That's a good point. And the more populace and technological we become, the more central and more controlling governments will have to be due to the increase of danger of war, pandemics, pollution, climate change, and resource exploitation. To an extent, an individual's rights have to take a backseat to things that threaten a population's right to live.

 

[Estro Felino]

The world is going backwards.

 

[icehorse]

Is there a report on the number of people who abuse their rights and freedoms?

Generally to have a right in a society means that the citizens understands the responsibility that rights demand.
To use the freedom of speech against others as a weapon will minimize the range of that freedom. Social contracts are a delicate balance.

Can you provide some specific examples of people abusing their free speech? I would agree that social media often contains speech that you and I would agree is very offensive. But that is the price we have to pay to maintain the far more important right to not have what we say or hear be censored. Who is smart enough to decide what YOU are allowed to hear? Personally, I've never heard of a person smart enough to decide that for me.

 

[Stevicus]

NEW REPORT: Global Freedom Declines for 17th Consecutive Year, but May Be Approaching a Turning Point

The 50th edition of Freedom in the World also finds that attacks on freedom of expression have been a key driver of democratic erosion.

freedomhouse.org

The turning point remains to be seen.

The culprit of the decline is said to be primarily the attacks on freedom of expression in wake of more and more stringent control over press and social media.

Makes one wonder whatever happened to the dream of freedom we once had.

 

[Stevicus]

This is the 2024 map indicating which areas are free.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

The turning point remains to be seen.

While we wait, could you tell us what you think of the January 6th attack on the Capitol and the recent Arizona Supreme Court abortion ruling?

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

This is the 2024 map indicating which areas are free.

That map has Israel as free, so that map is automatically a joke. It's like saying apartheid South Africa is free.

 

[F1fan]

Can you provide some specific examples of people abusing their free speech?

Trump getting gag orders because he is making veiled threats to those involved in the court cases. And look at Trump's big lie about election fraud, and all those who believe im, and repeat his lies. That is all deliberate abuse of speech to get an outcome that is corrupt. Ideally the freedom of speech is that Trump can lie about election fraud, and the citizens follow the facts and realize he is a liar, and to be condemned. No, his base was duped, and they nominated him because he abused this freedom. If he wins, the freedom of speech will surely be curtailed once he is in power.

If you deliberately lie to your spouce about where you were last night, that isn't a speech issue. But the higher profile a person is, and they use their influence to deliberately lie, it is an abuse of the freedom of speech. It's worse today thsan back when Nixon lied, because there wasn't the disinformation network as we have today. So when Trump lies it gets defended in ways it never did before, and it is up to individuals to understand what is deceptive and lying. But we see that many do not have any such skill, or the will, to understand true from lies.

I would agree that social media often contains speech that you and I would agree is very offensive.

I'm not talking about offensive, as there is too much eye of the beholder at play. Look at the Muslims wo attacked Charlie Hebdo some years ago because they published cartoons they found offensive. The Muslims were so offended about being represented in a cartoon that they decided to murder people to defend their reputation, and... um.... Clearly not people thinking through things fully.

But that is the price we have to pay to maintain the far more important right to not have what we say or hear be censored. Who is smart enough to decide what YOU are allowed to hear? Personally, I've never heard of a person smart enough to decide that for me.

The liberties and freedoms we have are not meant to be abused. In an ideal world with stable people with good reasoning skill it wouldn't be a big problem. With social media more and more feral humans have access to a platform that allows like-minded folks collect. The negative that has resulted is teen suicide due to online bullying. I have been personally threatened on Facebook for sharing my views on gun laws. I stopped that completely because even if I'm not murdered in my driveway by some offended right winger the anxiety isn't worth it. Freedoms are ideals, so with ideals there has to be tolerance. But there is also a requirement to respect freedom from ourselves, but also for others. If Nazis want to march, fine. I will submit my disapproval of their racism.

 

[F1fan]

That's a good point. And the more populace and technological we become, the more central and more controlling governments will have to be due to the increase of danger of war, pandemics, pollution, climate change, and resource exploitation. To an extent, an individual's rights have to take a backseat to things that threaten a population's right to live.

This is the balance of social contract, to compromise individual liberties for the sake of social stability. The individual relies on a stable society to function and thrive, so to a rational mind there is a willing compromise. We see the right move more towards individual rights, mostly under the banner of libertarian, and it is an unsettling phenomenon. Gun rights and abortion are the two major issues, both on opposite sides of freedom. For gun rights the opposition to laws is absurd. Most all will not have any rights infringed if more stringent laws were passed, but for them it's a matter of idealism, even if some get access to guns and commit mass murder. The ideals of unlimited freedom is worth more than the lives of citizens murdered. What about their rights? Citizens have the right to life, yet it gets compromized for another right that is clearly related to state security, not individual protection.

As for abortion rights, well, we all know what's going on there.

 

[icehorse]

The liberties and freedoms we have are not meant to be abused. In an ideal world with stable people with good reasoning skill it wouldn't be a big problem. With social media more and more feral humans have access to a platform that allows like-minded folks collect. The negative that has resulted is teen suicide due to online bullying. I have been personally threatened on Facebook for sharing my views on gun laws. I stopped that completely because even if I'm not murdered in my driveway by some offended right winger the anxiety isn't worth it. Freedoms are ideals, so with ideals there has to be tolerance. But there is also a requirement to respect freedom from ourselves, but also for others. If Nazis want to march, fine. I will submit my disapproval of their racism.

I'm not talking about offensive, as there is too much eye of the beholder at play. Look at the Muslims wo attacked Charlie Hebdo some years ago because they published cartoons they found offensive. The Muslims were so offended about being represented in a cartoon that they decided to murder people to defend their reputation, and... um.... Clearly not people thinking through things fully.

Can you square these two paragraphs? I agree the Charlie Hebdo incident was horrific and intolerable. To me that only reinforces how important free speech is?

And while I agree that there is a lot of abusive speech on the internet, I think the way to combat that is by shining sunlight on the abusers, not by censoring them. (And fwiw, we had to move our family 1500 miles to protect ourselves from online hate.)

 

[F1fan]

Can you square these two paragraphs? I agree the Charlie Hebdo incident was horrific and intolerable. To me that only reinforces how important free speech is?

I don't have a problem with political/social positions being expressed. The problem is when speech leads to violence and harm.

When I see gays, Jews, trans people attacked for who they are in speech, it is prejudical and harmful. Critique of Netanyahu is fair game. Threats against Jews is hate speech.

And while I agree that there is a lot of abusive speech on the internet, I think the way to combat that is by shining sunlight on the abusers, not by censoring them. (And fwiw, we had to move our family 1500 miles to protect ourselves from online hate.)

That sounds like pre-internet thinking. The internet has a way to protect the vile abusers, and allow them to fester in their filth, and gain alliances, and gain confidence, and they can ignore critics. Bans and censorship is a business decision by many socialmedia companies and I support their right to offer safe platforms for customers. They run the risk of enabling hate speech and even criminal behavior. As I noted I got death threats for non-controversial views on gun laws on Facebook, and it rattled me to the degree that I am rarely on that platform anymore. I'm not the only one. Facebook knows it.

I trusted the members of Facebook and my negative exprience taught me that there are many in society who do not take their speech as a responsibility.

 

[icehorse]

When I see gays, Jews, trans people attacked for who they are in speech, it is prejudical and harmful. Critique of Netanyahu is fair game. Threats against Jews is hate speech.

No doubt there is hateful speech based on bigotry and such.

But cries of "hate speech" has also become a tool for authoritarians and totalitarians. How would you propose dealing with such speech? To me censorship marks the beginning of the end of freedom.

That sounds like pre-internet thinking.

I would agree that free speech is no guarantee of a platform. And the internet does provide a way for haters to join forces, sad but true.

 

[Twilight Hue]

That map has Israel as free, so that map is automatically a joke. It's like saying apartheid South Africa is free.

Isreal is free. Just because there is a war going on dosent change anything.

 

[Twilight Hue]

While we wait, could you tell us what you think of the January 6th attack on the Capitol and the recent Arizona Supreme Court abortion ruling?

If you read my past postings , including archival postings, you ought to know already.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Isreal is free. Just because there is a war going on dosent change anything.

No, it isn't. Even Israeli Jews aren't free to speak out. They're beaten in the streets and arrested. You need to do some looking into it. You can't have freedom and a far-right ethnostate at the same time.

 

[Twilight Hue]

No, it isn't. Even Israeli Jews aren't free to speak out. They're beaten in the streets and arrested. You need to do some looking into it. You can't have freedom and a far-right ethnostate at the same time.

I'd like to see the sources on that.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

I'd like to see the sources on that.

Sources on what? Also, I'm kind of tired of bothering with Israel supporters on this site because almost all of you refuse to accept facts when they're presented to you, and just go back to demonizing Palestinians, which is bigotry. So am I going to be wasting my time again or not?

 

[Twilight Hue]

Sources on what? Also, I'm kind of tired of bothering with Israel supporters on this site because almost all of you refuse to accept facts when they're presented to you, and just go back to demonizing Palestinians, which is bigotry. So am I going to be wasting my time again or not?

You stated Israeli Jews were beaten in the streets and arrested.

That had to come from somewhere.