Youth Awareness











{May 3, 2008}   fs

آزادی بيان

آزادی گفتار و بيان به ويژه در زمينه مسايل سياسی و ساير مسايل عمومی شريان اصلی هر حكومت مردم سالار است. حكومت های مردم سالار بر محتويات بيشتر اظهارات كتبی و سخنرانی ها نظارت ندارند. بدين ترتيب در حكومت های مردم سالار معمولا صداهای متفاوتی در حال بيان نظرات و عقايد متفاوت يا حتی متضاد با حكومت ها هستند.

طبق باور نظريه پردازان مردم سالاری، مذاكره باز و آزاد معمولا به بهترين انتخاب ختم می شود و احتمال دوری از خطا در آن بيشتر است.

· مردم سالاری بر تبعه با سواد و آگاهی متكی است كه دسترسی آنان به اطلاعات، امكان مشاركتشان را در زندگی عمومی جامعه شان و نيز انتقاد از مقامات حكومتی نابخرد يا مستبد و يا چنين تدابيری به كامل ترين شكل ممكن فراهم می سازد. شهروندان و نمايندگان منتخب آنها می دانند كه مردم سالاری بر پايه وسيع ترين دسترسی به نظرات، داده ها و عقايد بدون مميزی استوار است.
· برای اين كه مردم آزاد بتوانند بر خود حكومت كنند لازم است كه در بيان گفتاری و نوشتاری آزاد باشند تا بتوانند نظراتشان را به طور باز، عمومی و مكرر اعلام نمايند.
· اصل آزادی بيان بايد توسط قانون اساسی مردم سالار حفاظت شود تا از مميزی اجباری شاخه های قانون گذار يا اجرايی حكومت جلوگيری به عمل آيد.
· حمايت از آزادی بيان از حقوقی است كه منفی خوانده می شود و بر خلاف اقدامات مستقيمی كه حقوق به اصطلاح مثبت خواستار می شوند به سادگی از حكومت می خواهد تا از محدود نمودن بيان بپرهيزد. در بيشتر موارد، مقامات حكومت مردم سالار مداخله ای در محتوای بيانات نوشتاری و گفتاری جامعه ندارند.
· اعتراضات، حوزه آزمايش كليه حكومت های مردم سالار به شمار می روند – بنابراين حق تجمع آرام حقی ضروری است و نقش لازمی را در تسهيل كاربرد آزادی بيان ايفا می كند. جامعه مدنی برای افرادی كه با برخی ازمسايل مخالفت شديد دارند امكان برگزاری مجادلات تند را فراهم می سازد.
· آزادی بيان يك حق لازم است، اما كافی نيست و نمی تواند در توجيه خشونت، تهمت، هتك حرمت، خرابكاری يا گفتار مستهجن به كار آيد. حكومت های تثبيت شده مردم سالار معمولا برای توجيه منع سخنرانی هايی كه ممكن است باعث بروز خشونت شوند يا پيشينه ديگران را بدون صحت خدشه دار نمايند يا موجب براندازی حكومتی مشروطه گردند يا رفتار مستهجن را گسترش دهند نيازمند بايد به ميزان بالايی در معرض تهديد باشند. بيشتر حكومت های مردم سالار همچنين از بياناتی كه موجب بروز خشونت نژادی يا قومی شود ممانعت به عمل می آورند.
· مشكل موجود بر سر راه مردم سالاری، برقرای تعادل بين دفاع از آزادی بيان و تجمع و مقابله با بياناتی است كه به طور واقعی از خشونت، ارعاب يا خرابكاری حمايت به عمل می آورند.

Advertisements


Fiza says:

The things we do, the way we act, and the words we speak. All of these freedoms were granted to us in the Bill of Rights. More importantly, they were granted to us by our Heavenly Father. Since when did our nation begin to tell us what we could or could not say? The United States of America was founded by godly men. These men gave everything they had to insure freedom in the future. They dreamed of a day when their great-great-great-great grandchildren would be able to have their own ideas and voice their own opinions.

Our nation was formed so everyone would have the opportunity to experience freedom. It’s funny that the people who rode in the Mayflower journeyed two thousand, seven hundred and fifty miles to be able to worship God without persecution. The main reason they left their country was to be able to come to a place where they could serve the Lord the way they pleased. Now hundreds of years later, we are being forced to remove every line or phrase with God in it. We are being forced to conform to a way that is not our own.

How is it fair that children can watch movies or television shows completely supporting immoral lifestyles but cannot say the line “one nation under God” in the pledge of allegiance? It is becoming more natural to hear a cuss word in a movie than to hear the word God. This is a testing time. As Christians, we must stay firm in our beliefs. We must take a stand before our freedoms slip away. It took one man to start the theory of evolution, it took one man to abolish slavery, it took one man to begin a war, it took one man to end a war, it took one man to save the world, and now we only need one man to save our freedoms. Stay firm. Stand up. Trust in God. Live Loud.

I pledge allegiance to the flag
Of the United States of America
And to the republic for which it
Stands, one nation, under God,
Indivisible, with liberty and
Justice for all.



Ali says:

Freedom of speech and expression, especially about political and other public issues, is the lifeblood of any democracy. Democratic governments do not control the content of most written and verbal speech. Thus democracies are usually filled with many voices expressing different or even contrary ideas and opinions.

According to democratic theorists, a free and open debate will usually lead to the best option being considered and will be more likely to avoid serious mistakes.

Democracy depends upon a literate, knowledgeable citizenry whose access to information enables it to participate as fully as possible in the public life of their society and to criticize unwise or tyrannical government officials or policies. Citizens and their elected representatives recognize that democracy depends upon the widest possible access to uncensored ideas, data, and opinions.

For a free people to govern themselves, they must be free to express themselves — openly, publicly, and repeatedly; in speech and in writing.

The principle of free speech should be protected by a democracy’s constitution, preventing the legislative or executive branches of government from imposing censorship.

The protection of free speech is a so-called negative right, simply requiring that government refrain from limiting speech, unlike the direct action required of other so-called affirmative rights. For the most part, the authorities in a democracy are uninvolved in the content of written and verbal speech in the society.

Protests serve as a testing ground for any democracy — thus the right to peaceful assembly is essential and plays an integral part in facilitating the use of free speech. A civil society allows for spirited debate among those in deep disagreement over the issues.

Freedom of speech is a fundamental right, but it is not absolute, and cannot be used to justify violence, slander, libel, subversion, or obscenity. Consolidated democracies generally require a high degree of threat in order to justify banning speech which may incite violence, untruthfully harm the reputation of others, overthrow a constitutional government, or promote lewd behavior. Most democracies also forbid speech that incites racial or ethnic violence.

The challenge for a democracy is one of balance: to defend freedom of speech and assembly while countering speech which truly encourages violence, intimidation, or subversion.



Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

et cetera
%d bloggers like this: