Jan 08

on freedom of speech,

Written by guest on Friday, January 8th, 2010 at 8:16 pm
Filed under:-guest-posts |
Add comments

I have a question about freedom of speech :

It means PEOPLE have the freedom to express their OPINIONS, right ?

So there are two categories here : People and opinions.

First categories , People can be

1) people mistreated by government.
2) people needs government help because of accidents.
3) people lost all of his savings cuz of their stupidity
4) people didnt get what they wanted (the amount of money) from government.
5) people who are lazy but want to enjoy the benefits of govenrment.
6) people who want all kinds of benefits, no matter how unreasaonable their requests are.
7) people who mislead other peoples.
8) people who dont like the government so they nickpick the problems of government everywhere
9) people who only show people the facts that can sell their agenda but hide other facts.
10) people who are lawyers (you know what I mean)
and SO ON.

Second categories, opinions :
1) complains towards the government cuz of being mistreated.
2) complains towards the government cuz government ignores his misforture.
3) blame government for his loss in his investment.
4) blaime goverment for not giving him what he asked.
5) bash government cuz he didnt have the benefits.
6) bash government for his misery (cuz of his own laziness.)
7) bash government cuz he spent more than he earned.
8) bash government cuz government doesnt make the plan like he wants.(or his boss wants)
9) bash government cuz he wants to make this government look bad.
10) bash government cuz he wants to make himself look good, hence more political influence for him.
and SO ON.

My question :

Do you consider every COMBINATION from these two categories part of “freedom of speech”?

There are currently no comments highlighted.

26 Responses to “on freedom of speech,”

  1. Charles Liu Says:

    Well, freedom of speech is not limitless. For example are all political speech free and clear? In the eye of US law, citizen’s political asperation is not considered genuine if it’s directed or sponsored by foreign entity, thus must subject to regulation. Specifically the Foreign Agent Registration Act.

    And I suspect it’s the same with China as well.

  2. FOARP Says:

    @OP – Yes. Although I don’t know why I’m even bothering answering this because the answer is obvious, and the OP is clearly just trolling.

    @Charles Liu – Thank you for giving us yet another comment which consists of “Well, I don’t know squat about China, so I’m just going to riff off some stuff about the US and that should be OK”.

  3. r v Says:


    I’m a lawyer. And I will only say that lawyers are far less likely to use words crudely to injure others. Over 30 of the US Founding Fathers are lawyers, who turned thoughts of freedom into the Constitution, the Supreme Law of the People. Thomas Jefferson, a lawyer, drafted the Declaration of Independence.


    “Freedoms” are defined by laws, and by nature, limited by the words of the laws. No amount of philosophy will turn such “freedoms” into absolutes of anarchy, because they are creations of laws, lawyers, leaders, presidents, dictators, and tyrants.


    By the very nature of “freedoms” and “laws,” we are separated into the 2 classes: The makers vs. the followers, the knowers and the ignorants, the advantaged and the disadvantaged.

    Even if you “elect” those who make the “laws,” you will never trust them, simply because you know you are merely giving power from one group to another.

    So at the end of the day, you have nothing but the “freedom” to be paranoid, the “freedom” to suspect lawyers but still live under the laws they make.

    Examine carefully what you will have, when the worst happens to you, you will no doubt be provided a free lawyer to plead for your “freedom”, while another pleads to take everything from you, and yet another who will sit in judgment of your every imperfections.

    All the while, you are told to “remain silent,” or else.

    Of course, I understand the fear of the average man, to be hauled before a group of lawyers, like a sacrificial lamb for a strange pagan ritual of invoking statutes, codes, sections, objections, motions, nola contende, coram nobis, and res ipsa loquitur.

    But the average man should fear law, fear the loss of the “freedoms”, because the average man is irrational, and by nature, filled with lawless savage nature.

  4. Wahaha Says:

    @OP – Yes. Although I don’t know why I’m even bothering answering this because the answer is obvious, and the OP is clearly just trolling.

    what you mean the answer is obvious ?

    To lot of chinese, lot of combinations of them should nt included as part of freedom of speech.

    Why cant you answer directly ?

  5. Wahaha Says:


    I m not a lawyer, I dont play words.

    Please tell directly if you agree all of combination are part of freedom of speech.

    Human being are far more complicated than several books can handle, if the height of books is taller than empiire state building. There are too many variables about human being for even millions of laws to handle.

  6. Wahaha Says:


    In west, all the information and media are controled by a small group of people and brainwash people to be unanimous on almost all political issues, hence they enjoy the “freedom of speech” as there is no major difference in their opinions.

    Any country that is not highly unanimous on major political issues are in chaos under west democracy, well that is what lot of people want to see in China.

    For example, last year, chinese government executed a british drug dealer. On internet, you can clearly see that lof of britishs supported what chinese government did, but their voice was ignored.

  7. r v Says:

    Aye, Words are my play, better sharply words than dull swords.

    Better sharply words for sharply minds, than sharply words for dull minds, or dull swords for dull minds.

    minds may be complicated, laws should be the same for all. (That, we Chinese discovered a long time ago. Easy to discover, difficult to practice.)

    The combination of many minds and one set of laws results in lawyers, average men, and criminals.

    Lawyers excel in the laws, average men merely obey, criminals run against.

    This is the gift of laws, the Freedom of Laws.

    Speeches are merely decorations for law and order. In chaos of anarchy, there would be enough “freedom” to drown out the voices of every man, no one will hear any speeches.

    Thus, it is the universal truth that, he who upholds law and order will be heard, he who does not will be ignored.

  8. Wahaha Says:

    Better sharply words for trained minds

    Law can not guide all, as human being are too complicated and cant be determined by several variables, that is what I mean.

  9. r v Says:

    Law sets the rules, by which all are supposed to guide themselves in conduct.

    It is complicated. Of course, that’s why we have lawyers.

    I’m happy to see that China is acquiring a new class of top leaders, many with law training.


    Strangely, my career has somewhat coincided with this transformation.

    A few years ago, I was an engineer, and now, I’m a lawyer.

  10. r v Says:

    There is an old concept, “Citizen lawyers,” which I believe is the model that all societies should move toward.

    It is the responsibility of all citizens to uphold the laws under which they live.

    And they cannot do so effectively, if they do not study the laws to a reasonable degree of proficiency.

    Nor can they change the laws, or vote the laws, unless they know the full degree of possible consequences to their opinions.

    Thus, I do not believe in “voice of the people”, when the People are typically ignorant of laws.

    But if a society has mostly people with law training (not necessarily their main profession), then a true democracy is possible, as a responsible democracy.

    Freedom of speech should not allow any form of public irrational emotional blather from people who have no understanding of the issues. (personal stakes/harms may earn you a seat as a plaintiff on the witness stand, but not as the advocate for one side or another.)

    Of course, you can complain as much as you want in the privacy of your own home to family.

  11. S.K. Cheung Says:

    Lawyers are undoubtedly well-versed in the rules of law, and are eminently adept at following and applying those rules (some might even say manipulating those rules, but that’s for another day and another time). But it serves to remember that People make the rules that lawyers follow….well, maybe not in China, but around these parts.

    To suggest that people must follow the rules of law but have no right to publicly question the basis or justification for such rules smacks of the system that is practiced by the country that is the subject of this blog.

  12. r v Says:

    Question the basis of law, when you have some understanding of it.

    Otherwise, it’s just foolishness.

  13. S.K. Cheung Says:

    You still seem to forget that the People and the courts make the laws that lawyers and the People themselves have to follow. Sometimes I wonder if computers wouldn’t make better lawyers than some lawyers.

  14. r v Says:

    Lawyers make the laws, for the People.

    Even in US, where the People can submit bills, by the time the bills passes through Congress, they have been reworked by over hundreds of lawyers.

    If you know the laws and the legal systems, you wouldn’t be wondering if computers make better lawyers than some lawyers.

    I would just say, computers at least, play honest fools better than some fools.

    And computers would be much more “literal”.

  15. S.K. Cheung Says:

    “Lawyers make the laws, for the People.” — you’re kidding, right? Yes, lawyers are involved in drafting the bills. But lawyers certainly aren’t voting on them for passage, nor are they interpreting them from the bench (yes, I know judges are lawyers, and some politicians and Presidents are lawyers too, but don’t be so literal just this once, K?)

    “you wouldn’t be wondering if computers make better lawyers than some lawyers.” — maybe not trial lawyers that go to court. I imagine an automated voice would be off-putting for jurors. But I imagine computers would be plenty good at dredging through statutes and bringing up sideshows.

  16. r v Says:

    Oh yes, the legislators who vote on the bills have no lawyers telling them how to vote!

    right, it’s all the People’s Representatives in their pure conscience.

  17. S.K. Cheung Says:

    “lawyers telling them how to vote!” — that’s a really good one. You know, I would have gone for “House whips” or “Senate leaders” telling them how to vote, which probably happens way too often. But your’s is better for humour value. At the very least, I’m happy to see that you view your profession in such high esteem.

  18. r v Says:

    I don’t care if you don’t know reality.

  19. S.K. Cheung Says:

    Your “reality”? No thanks.

  20. r v Says:

    Again, Me, literal.

    You, not precise. you better define for us your definition of “reality”.

  21. S.K. Cheung Says:

    More diversion away from the topic of freedom of speech, I see. You are quite energetic wrt those antics, it seems.

  22. r v Says:

    You rejected my “reality”. So define yours.

    Or you just proved that you don’t know your own “reality”.

  23. S.K. Cheung Says:

    See #21. And in case you were wondering, I have no interest in your reality at the best of times.

  24. r v Says:

    See #21 for your diversion.

    Define your “reality”, if you can. Avoiding it only shows you have no unique definitions, only imprecision.

  25. S.K. Cheung Says:

    If you’re going to parrot somebody, at least make it make sense next time, ok. You’re saying that my calling out your diversions is in itself a diversion? Alrightey then…whatever you say, matey. Your logic is, yet again, “interesting”.

  26. Wahaha Says:

    But if a society has mostly people with law training (not necessarily their main profession), then a true democracy is possible, as a responsible democracy.

    America the governable


    Read carefully, the author didnt use the magic word “people”, as professional politiicans used in every sentence they spoke in public.

    You know, as @$$hole can be trusted after he used the magic word 100 times. Like no Americans believe lawyers, but most politicians are lawyers, why? cuz they are good at using the magic word.

Leave a Reply