- Omar Abdullah:This insightful piece highlights the growing challenges faced by Arab housewives, particularly in relation to online infidelity. Factors such as lack of time, marital dissatisfaction, and
- اسپری فیکساتور:Hey there, I think your site might be having browser compatibility issues. When I look at your blog site in Firefox, it looks fine but when opening in Internet Explorer, it has
- Fadi:الله يرحمها و يجعل مثواها بعليين و يجمعك معها بالجنة بعد عم%
- بلوجر بالعربي:looks very good
- بلوجر بالعربي:مفيد جداً
- Noura:Different home, but same longing and nostalgia .. it seems we are chasing a mirage , Beirut of my dreams does not exist nor the people i miss .. i don't know if my gains were worth the losses ? I
- price waves repeat:The other day, while I was at work, my sister stole my iphone and tested to see if it can survive a 25 foot drop, just so she can be a youtube sensation. My iPad is now broken
- Sara:You can say that again!God Bless🕊
- ياسمين حميد:كما هي طبيعتنا نحن العرب، عند الانتقال بين منصة وأخرى لا نحت%
- Sara:No, never meaningless.. amen ya Raby🙏God Bless🕊
This webslice will refreshes every10 minutes.
Memories....
But may be Democracy, because after some freedom of speech a big speech fight will happend
but in democracy one have to control his anger and keep the words for him self
I don't know...maybe !!
Both are not absolute. They don't contradict each other in the sense that for democracy to exist then everyone has the right to express their opinion and form an uncensored channel of information to all (<< that's a sad attempt to simplify a complex issue).
Free speech has - for the lack of a better word - limitations. It's back to the topic of "how free is free speech" and you get "how democratic is your democracy?"
Free speech can easily become hate speech because people simply tolerate things differently. Taking this into account, free speech is most probably motive-driven and should have a certain value (or should it?).
Once you put limitations on free speech, you put limitations on democracy (depending on the limitation) as there is a block of information flow.
The very act of trying to define either confines them with our own mental agenda. Unless there is a universal consensus (and by universal, I mean universal, not just 4-6 representative countries) then we're still stuck in the abstract
As in, Freedom of speech allows you to say "Boo"
Democracy decided that "Boo" is unacceptable and punishable by death.
What then?
Well in theroy Freedom of Speech allows you to say Boo, but in practice and under the unspoken soial contract you have with the rest of society you don't say Boo, or if you do, you don't say Boo to someone with heart problems, which in this case would be catagorized under the abuse of freedom of speech, which could/should be punishable in a democracy, because the misuse of any freedom should cause its rebuttal, or denial, for a period which is relative to the reason.
Since nobody knows or cares what's civil or acceptable behavior anymore, it's vitally important that obnoxious Speech be punished on an individual basis (not by the State, which can't do the job effectively). If someone's an ass, his Speech earns him a punch in the nose, and he learns to be more circumspect next time, or to bring more friends to ensure his safety when he Speaks. Freedom Of Speech enables bad behavior, and to insist on someone's right to Freedom Of Speech merely encourage more bad behavior.