Hello Wendy,

I came across this while reading: "How is freedom to be lived so that freedom does not destroy itself?" (John Paul II, Witness to Hope)

He says that when freedom is connected to the flourishing of the common good of humans, it is enobled. When freedom tramples on the common good, it integrity is lessened.

Just some thoughts. Thanks for bringing up the topic.

you have as much freedom as the rules of this site allow, pretty simple concept

Hello Wendy,

Paradoxically, freedom without some restraints, as WW pointed out, becomes a type of slavery.  If we have to put up with the excesses of everyone else, including their trampling on our own righs, that's not true freedom.  It would be hellish to not have laws in this land because everyone was "free" to do what they want, when they want, and how they want. People would be at the mercy of the powerful and the savage.

Also, I'd add we have the freedom to choose what is right, not the freedom to choose evil. When we choose evil, we're invariably trampling on other's rights to our own benefit.

 

We have a very interesting discussion going on. I see society has having freedom of choice, speech and other things as long as it isn't intentionally hurting another human - and animals, for that matter. People are free to make the choice of having dogs as pets but should have that freedom taken away when they breed them to fight. Of course, how would we stop them? Let's take Michael Vick as an example. He got punished for breeding dogs and training them to fight. But what is going to stop him from doing it again (if he does)? He will be free to make that choice, regardless of how much we frown upon it.

I totally agree with each of you. There has to be some limitations when speaking of "freedom of speech." It's just ironic to see the word "freedom" and the definition behind it used in that phrase. When something is free, you think of no limitations. No boundaries. Irony.

And Aprill, my dear sister girl, I've missed you too! Who knows? You may see me walk into the newsroom again. Not to work again, but to visit.

I have always loved the old adage that your freedom to swing your fist ends where my nose begins.  You don't have the right to intrude on the freedoms of others, but  beyond that, pretty much anything goes; at least as far as I'm concerned.  Free speech and press are sacrosanct.  The only limits should be those of libel and slander.  For all these reasons, I HATE the idea of homeowners associations who like to think they have the right to tell the owners of homes what color they can paint their front door or how often they must mow the grass or whether they can fly Old Glory.  With the censors on one side and bible thumpers on the other telling us what we can say,which movies we can watch, with whom we can sleep, trying to tell women that they must carry an unwanted pregnancy to term, the form of entertainment on which we can spend our money, how we may celebrate Independence Day, and on and on and on, personal liberty is fading fast.  Like the movie, Soylent Green, the only way we'll be able to experience freedom will be in the form of a movie as we lie dying on a bed before we're disposed of.

Wendles! How I miss thee. Welcome back, woman.

Hello Wendy,

You ask a great question about freedom. I think freedom has to have boundaries, or else it becomes license. Freedom must respect the rights of other people. So, I have the freedom to drive, but I don't have the freedom to endanger others, and by by law, even myself to a point.

As far as freedom of speech, of course we have must have the freedom to speak the truth. Yet we shouldn't be totally free to speak lies (slander).

I wasn't aware that someone had recently had his blog deleted, but as Sugar Magnolia stated, the eds. here do have a pretty liberal policy. And when they do delete, at least on the discussion forum, it's for obvious reasons, as vulgarity, and personal attacks. I'm sure the delete for other reasons, and it comes down to it's their website, they are responsible for it, and they set the rules.

Welcome back, Wendy. Most online and print editions of newspapers and journals, as far as I am aware, have their own set of rules, more similar than dissimilar, set by their code of ethics. I tend to think of freedom in almost all aspects (not just speech) not so much as being limited, or having boundaries, but rather as carrying with it responsibilities. These are just my thoughts. I am not in the publishing business, and it would be interesting to hear from someone who is. I know that both Chris Cobler and Gabe Semenza have addressed this in various blogs and editorials, and for the most part, I think the Victoria Advocate has a quite liberal policy about what they will allow to be published, both in print and online editions. One thing I noticed from Mr. Cobler's and Mr. Semenza's writings is that it is generally a well-thought out policy, not something decided willy-nilly. I think that most responsible publications approach the task that way. Of course, I am sure there a few who do not. For me, the key word that goes with freedom is always RESPONSIBILITY.