3 ms·
> I'd argue that being allowed to write about the fact a police officer took your house and there's no real recourse for you to get it back is less important th
by studentrob 11y ago
> I'd argue that being allowed to write about the fact a police officer took your house and there's no real recourse for you to get it back is less important than the officer just not taking it in the first place.
The fact that you can write about it IS your recourse. If you're not allowed to share your issues with others, you'll never get any weight behind them. Places like China and North Korea know this and clamp down on any groups rallying around a cause. Meanwhile, their laws go unenforced and an "every man for himself" attitude prevails, as they know they don't really have protection from the state.
Is America perfect? No. But freedom of speech is the one open door we have towards making our country better. Remember the Boston Tea Party, the I Have a Dream speech, Women's Suffrage, Antiwar movements, Gay rights, labor movements...
None of these are possible in places that do not have free speech.
- DanBC 11y ago> Women's Suffrage, Antiwar movements, Gay rights, labor movements... England has those. We don't have freedom of speech in the US sense.
- studentrob 11y agoRight, countries define it differently. England's in a different part of the world, I can understand that. My response was to your comment that having the correct laws in place is more important than giving people freedom of speech. And I'm saying having freedom of speech IS your path to enacting just laws. As donw pointed out, civil forefeiture laws were not created as a result of free speech in America. The two are unrelated