do you think we have false freedoms?

simple question do we have false freedoms things like

were sapposed to have freedom of speach but exercising this gets you jailed, same with freedom to peaceful assemble, or how kids are sapposed to have the right to choose wheather or not to go to school but if they choose not to they get fined heavely can end up in court or their parents go to jail for this.

what do you think?:confused

 

I think freedom of speech should come with a spell checker. :-D

Where does it say in the Constitution that kids can choose whether to attend school or not?
Have you actually read the freedoms we are guaranteed under the Constitution to know what they actually say?

I'm assuming you're in the US, by the way...if you're somewhere else I haven't got a clue as I'm only familiar with the laws here.

 

ya im from the us and no i never botherd to read it rofl but i agree with the spell checker i am one of the worst spellers on the forums

and the school i feel should fall more into the catagory of the persuit of happiness

i think ill look it up (the constatution) hi ho google away rofl

 

You'll want to spell Constitution as I do, not as you've got it.

Although your profile doesn't say, I'm assuming you're young (high school? college?). That is based on your assumption that going to school or not should be covered under "the pursuit of happiness". Trust me...it's not.

Here:
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution.html

What you're looking for is under Bill of Rights.

 

lol ya i am kinda young lol and school was a drag but non the less i still stick to the right to choose wheather or not to go lol its their life let them decide anymore schools are like expensive daycares for most

 

Actually, now you've made me dust off my mind... The pursuit of happiness line is actually from the Declaration of Independence, which is not a binding law in this or any other country, but rather a statement we issued when we chose to revolt against Britain.

http://www.ushistory.org/Declaration/document/index.htm

Your views on school have been shared by virtually every person who has ever attended school as a teenager. However, until you are a legal adult you do not have the power to choose whether or not you do a large number of things, which for the most part is better. You'll see that when you get older.

Oh yeah...in addition to spelling, maybe you'll want to look at punctuation and capitalization. Those help in being understood as well. School is probably good for you.

 

i not good at spelling my specialtys in alebra and astronomy

 

This is why you go to school. :-D

 

I think we have unlimited freedoms in our respective democracies. The trouble is, our freedom is open to scrutiny in almost every sense. CCTV, stored data, satellites, phone taps, who's to say we aren't being tracked or watched right now? Paranoia is rife in society today and who can blame the populace? They monitor our Emails and web searches, for God's sake. Whatever happened to the right to privacy?

@ red death. I have known some very clever people in my time and believe me, some of them couldn't spell their own name. You can try to brush up on your spelling and punctuation, your posts are sometimes hard to read, but it don't mean you any less clever than anyone else.

 

Old example - Yelling "Fire" in an auditorium when there is none, to create a panic.

 

The way I heard it, the reason children are forced to go to school is to stop child labor.

Freedom of Speech is much more free now than it was a few years ago, when they started arresting people protesting the war in Iraq. The same thing with peaceful assembly, it's much better now.

As for the freedoms being false, I believe the quotes: 'Those who trade freedom for security deserve neither.' and 'The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.' apply here.

 

At my school, the agreement to use the computers says somehting like "you have no expectations of privacy." I have an antikeylogger on my USB stick.

 

Ditto!

You don't have to be book smart to be intelligent. Good old common sense is a great place to start.

Agreed. And as many people don't notice some of the forum features....in the upper right corner of the post reply box is ABC with a check mark under it...click it to spell check your posts.

 

I just want to point out that you are free to emigrate in most countries for the price of a plane ticket and live somewhere with more freedoms.

The problem is there's always a trade off,in a place that's TOTALLY free a desert island for example you don't have any luxuries of a restricted community and more importantly everyone else is free,which means free to encroach on your freedoms so your not as free as you first appear,its all about balance,most of the restrictions we have on freedoms are there to protect us from people encroaching on our freedoms and are a good thing.

In a universal sense freedom is impossible,we are all trapped in these bodies,in this universe,destined to die,even if your an omnipotent being who can manipulate everything to your liking your still trapped as an omnipotent being.

 

Agreed Laura, I read through these posts hoping someone would at least vaguely point out that the people who are uneducated are usually paid for by those of us who are.

Although no one can force you to learn anything, you've got to be in school. You have the ability to choose which school you attend, public, private or home, anything in between.

We have to remember that the government runs public schooling, so it makes sense that you're required to attend. If all we had were private institutions, the government most likely wouldn't get in the way. I'm not slamming gov't here, just pointing out the difference between public school, and say universities. I don't believe the government runs too many of those, and no one really cares if you attend one.

Our basic rights are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and just because they are rights, does not mean that you're going to be handed any of them.

although that may get you jail time, nobody has ever been jailed for just the words, more likely the outcome. If we were not entitled freedom of speech, you wouldn't be allowed to say the word "Fire" at any audible level, in any gathering of people anywhere.

 

If you didn't yell the word, there would be no "outcome".

 

If you yelled "The Devil wants to kill you" in church, no one would like that either, and it may even lead to a disturbing the peace charge. My point is, you have the right to say whatever you want, whenever you want, wherever you want, not the freedom from prosecution for executing those rights.

Just like we have the right to bear arms. It's not illegal to fire a weapon at a firing range, however if you set a target up in the mall, there's going to be a problem.

Even though we have rights, it does not excuse us from making decisions regarding those rights. You can yell "Fire" in your own house until you're blue in the face, and there won't be any problem, like you and I have both said now, the problem lies in the "outcome".

 

Freedom of speech in the United States is protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and by many state constitutions and state and federal laws. Criticism of the government and advocacy of unpopular ideas that people may find distasteful or against public policy, such as racism, are generally permitted. There are exceptions to the general protection of speech, however, including the Miller test for obscenity, child pornography laws, and regulation of commercial speech such as advertising. Other limitations on free speech often balance rights to free speech and other rights, such as property rights for authors and inventors (copyright), interests in "fair" political campaigns (Campaign finance laws), protection from imminent or potential violence against particular persons (restrictions on Hate speech or fighting words), or the use of untruths to harm others (slander). Distinctions are often made between speech and other acts which may have symbolic significance. Efforts have been made to ban flag desecration, for example, though currently that act remains protected speech.

__________________________

The Miller test is the United States Supreme Court's test for determining whether speech or expression can be labeled obscene, in which case it is not protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and can be prohibited.

The Miller test was developed in the 1973 case Miller v. California. It has three parts:

* Whether the average person, applying contemporary community standards, would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest,
* Whether the work depicts/describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct or excretory functions specifically defined by applicable state law,
* Whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value. (This is also known as the (S)LAPS test- [Serious] Literary, Artistic, Political, Scientific.)

The work is considered obscene only if all three conditions are satisfied.

___________________________

Falsely shouting "fire" in a crowded room is used as an example of speech which serves no conceivable useful purpose and is extremely and imminently dangerous so that resort to the courts or administrative procedures is not practical and expresses the permissible limitations on free speech consistent with the terms of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.

 

very interesting points all of you but i still stick with my in general first statment but i can see your defences of these restrictions and i do see a purpose but some thing definently get taken over the line