Freedom Ride

It means it’s a curve ball. As in ‘ disingenous ‘.

Throughout the world, countries with strong governments do not allow free speech. This is even true in European countries that forbid speech that criticizes government policies disguised in legislation called hate crimes and thought crimes. So can a nation with a strong government, allow freedom of speech or does it disappear because the strong government tries to be a nanny state and determine the rights it can provide and take away from its citizens?

Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. As such, our Founding Fathers chose to expressly limit the powers of the federal gov’t in the Constitution. That said, we’ve allowed our gov’t to grow to a point that the Constitution is completely ignored. The vast, vast majority of what Congress votes on every day is unconstitutional under various amendments.

When people allow the gov’t to grow too powerful, rights are trampled. Thus, when carried to the extreme, the answer to your Q is, "No."

why do the goverment want to limit the freedom and rights of others? also do you think it is human nature or is it the environment they live in?

Is the government in some way preventing you from getting a proper education?
Honestly, reading your question hurt my head based on it’s structure alone.

is sedition "0bama regime" while patriotic freedom of speech is "Bush regime"?

Sedition is designed to incite rebellion against authority as in an act of civil unrest or violence. The people on the left are attempting to cause civil unrest by their rhetoric against citizens who do not agree with their policies. If their words stir some fringe group to an act of violence against government, they have used sedition to accomplish an act of rebellion. The very people who are guilty of sedition are accusing peaceful group demonstrations of using sedition. Their hope is to discredit any who would disagree with the greed, corruption and flawed agenda that the administration and Congress are engaging in. It is sort of like lighting a fire and then blaming others for the act of arson. The left has no morals or class, only an agenda at any cost.

Please need serious help

This is part of a movie,-a real Iraq veteran making a very powerful speech.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=akm3nYN8aG8

This is the first part of an award winning BBC documentary,
"The Power of Nightmares"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eOlwbaPe2os
which is also related

This is a Sky production that is maybe most relevent
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k1oPEfa9Lws

it’s pretty sad, but I hope it helps

It should be an automatic right to live in a world where the press can report what happens without government interference. Sadly this is not always the case, but thankfully there are a few countries that allow this democratic right, mostly in northern Europe. What countries do you think enjoy these freedoms?

Most Anglo-Celtic countries North America, UK, Australia and New Zeaalnd, such as Commonwealth of Nations members have a fair degree of freedom of the press.

The fourth estate however are fairly censored and controlled still by authorities to some degree it is much more subtle than most people know by the media moguls.

Was the American Revolution really a war to obtain freedom, or was it a war to keep the british from imposing restrictions on the freedom most Americans already had?

Aren’t those kind of the same thing? The Revolutionary war was to obtain freedom because Britain was imposing unfair taxes and restrictions. The Americans didn’t just want better treatment. They wanted total freedom. People are like that.

I think swimming makes a man complete…cos for a general gentle person learning swimming means he have no fear for anything in general…cos he may have normal feelings of fear like fear of tigers etc. but usually he is not in phobia….so if he learn swimming he has nothing to left for fear….i think users will understand what i m trying to say…..so he is freedom…!!

Yeah. Swimming and martial arts really make you feel free to do anything.

A proposal to amend the Constitution to address the recent Supreme Court decision would allow regulation of speech by corporate entities but not of the press. Why? And would this involve the government having to define more specifically what constitutes the "media?" How would it be defined? Would the press protections only apply to for-profit news organizations? What about public relations departments of corporations? What about advocacy groups like 501(c)(4) organizations and the like?

It can’t be done for the very reasons you suggest. Defining a different set of rules for press vs speech is not possible, nor is creating a different set of rules for corporate entities than individuals.

There s no serious proposal to do that in any event. None of the original 10 amendments have ever been repealed, and that is effectively what this idea would involve. The 1st says "Congress shall pass no law infringing ……" You can’t adjust that, you’d have to strike it out entirely.

It does exist, and there is a group that is trying to get Facebook to delete it. But there is another group called "F**k the troops"

I believe in Freedom of speech, but there are 13 year olds (and younger) on Facebook, I don’t think they should be viewing offensive groups like that.

Do you think Freedom of speech applies here?

Just because we have freedom of speech does not mean you have the right to insult and humiliate others. That is not freedom of speech. Just like you have the right to defend yourself, you can’t just kill a person because he/she simply raised his/her hand at you.

I believe its very sad that there are people so miserable and unhappy as these.. This is just a group of devil worshipers that will be handled by the Man upstairs some day.