Is Freedom of speech only free when you do not fear repercussion from a tyrannical government?

Question

Fighting homegrown terrorism by monitoring Internet communications is a civil liberties trade-off the U.S. government must make to beef up national security, the nation's homeland security chief said Friday.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/06/18/napolitano-internet-monitoring-needed-fight-homegrown-terrorism/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+foxnews%2Fpolitics+%28Text+-+Politics%29

Answer 1

the 2nd Amendment is in the Constitution to protect from a tyrannical government first and foremost!!!

Answer 2

The question makes no sense. "Is Freedom of speech only free when . . ."

Did you mean to ask "Does Freedom of speech only really exist when . . ."?

In answer to the latter question, I think the answer is yes.



The funny thing about internet monitoring and such is that, with anonymous remailers, 256 bit encryption (available in the .NET framework and rated by the NSA strong enough for TS information), etc., the people who really have something to hide are immune to these spy games anyway. Like always, it's Joe down the street that suffers in order to "show that we're doing something".

Answer 3

No, i don't think of laptop is for individuals who concern freedom of speech. human beings can take laptop too far, in spite of the shown fact that it does have a objective. yet i'm a staunch defender of the 1st modification, whether somebody says something that I despise, i'd possibly in no way edit them. i won't be in a position to think of of a topic the place i might justify banning loose speech. valuable, I hate what some human beings ought to declare, I hate 'hate' speech, racist speech, sexists speech, and so on. yet i'd possibly in no way ban all people from conversing their recommendations. And reality is subjective, all human beings has there own reality. this is a fallacy to assume that ones reality is familiar. One ought to understand that their theory approximately something is barely There own reality, not inevitably all human beings else's. :)

Answer 4

Some people think being a pornographer is a free speech issue ergo sleazy older men having the right to exploit 18 year old girls to have sex on tape for money, they then hide behind the 1st amendment like the cowardly perverts they are.



If that's the kind of free speech you are talking about you can keep it.

Answer 5

We live in the same society where its country pride of its "freedom of speech" and ends up killing the writers or journalists or even persecute the people who cry for justice. I don't think our governments are willing to listen, they just wanted us to follow - where is democracy in that?

Answer 6

Freedom of speech is only free when you do not fear repercussion from a corporation willing to sue.

Answer 7

OH MY GOD!



FOX NEWS is suddenly concerned about the government's infringement on civil liberties?



Where the hell were they for the last 7 years of Bush's term?



WOW!



To answer your second question, anyone who doesn't fear the government regardless of the letter by the name of those in power is an idiot.

Answer 8

Yes. This is essential.

Answer 9

And they got your IP now.

Answer 10

If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear.

Answer 11

damn my nigguh i dunno wat you just said but ur right