I know that I am not the only one that has pondered this question. I have seen many posts presenting the Liberal perspective, but I have also seen post leaning more towards the Conservative opinions.

I guess the question to ask is not so much is Triond Liberal or Conservative, but rather are YOU Liberal or Conservative?

Of course everyone is given the right to have their opinion and their own perspective and because of the great country that we live in we all have the right to freedom of speech, which I am utilizing as I write.

I would really love to hear what my readers have to say about this. Do you think Triond is a Liberal or Conservative site?

01-Conservative Conference 2010 (Photo credit: The Health Hotel)

I know what I think, but before I make my thoughts known I want to hear what you all think. Express your opinion and your thoughts below in the comment section so that we can begin to build and discussion type forum. In the forum you can leave whatever it is you like…you can even leave links to your own blogs, post, and websites to help generate your content earnings.

I believe that not only will all have a lively discussion, but I also believe that this one post will help us all generate the content views that we all so desperately desire. So go…go get to commenting and let us all see our earnings begin to build.

Imagine a world where you have unlimited freedom. You can do whatever you want without restriction. You can say anything, think anything, or do anything.

You have the freedom, for example, to say what you like. You have the freedom to go where you like. You have the freedom to take what you like. You have the freedom to do what you like.

In fact, a great many of these freedoms will impact other people. If you have unlimited freedom, then you have the freedom to take the belongings and wealth of another person on any whim. You have the freedom to hurt others. You have the freedom to kill. Without any resistance, if you so wish.

If you have absolute, total freedom to do as you wish, then the people around you have their own freedoms severely limited. After all, you have the freedom to take away their freedoms!

So it is not realistic for one person to have unlimited freedom. The intelligent reader will note that it is impossible for more than one person to have unlimited freedom, for the reason in the last sentence of the previous paragraph.

If we can’t have total freedom, then, how much freedom can we have?

When anyone thinks about it for a moment or two, it becomes obvious that if more than one person is involved, then no-one can have the freedom to take away the freedoms of others. So if you have the freedom to own a house, then I can’t have the freedom to burn down your house.

If you have the freedom to good health, then I can’t have the freedom to pump toxic gas into the air near your home.

If you have the freedom to safety, then I can’t have the freedom to impede that safety.

A lot of freedom, actually, is being aware of how one freedom automatically brings with it a number of responses. If people have freedom A, then it follows that they cannot have freedoms B, C, or D.

So think of freedom this way: we live in a society of people, and therefore no freedom any person has should impeach on the freedom of the other people. If we have the freedom of safety, then we cannot allow one person access to deadly weapons, say. What would you like to be able to be free to do? How does that affect the freedoms of others? Are these important freedoms?

Everything we do affects the freedoms of other people. By having free speech, we deny people peace and quiet. This may be a fair trade at times, but not always. By allowing freedom to buy weapons, we deny the general populace the freedom of safety to a certain degree. By allowing freedom of information to all people, we deny the privacy of many.

Which freedoms are important enough to make them worth more than the freedoms they deny? Because unlimited freedom is impossible. We only have the freedom to do what doesn’t detract from the freedom of others.

A criminal might claim “I have the freedom and right to not be on a register when I leave prison!” But this freedom would deny the freedom of peace of mind and, potentially, safety, of the local community. Safety always comes first, so he is denied his request of freedom. He cannot have his freedom because it takes away even more freedom of others.

“I have the freedom to practice my religion!” a man might claim. But he doesn’t realise that he does not have that freedom if his religion takes away from the freedom of others. A religion that involves killing or pain as its central doctrine is not one we are free to follow.

Next time you read in the news or online about someone wanting things against the wishes of others, think about this: in which scenario is most freedom maintained? In which possible outcome are the most important, basic freedoms kept safe? In which choice is the freedom of safety, health, and peace of mind maintained?

Because when people talk about freedom, they often talk about their own freedoms. They forget that we live in a society, and every freedom we have takes away other freedoms. They forget that there are basic freedoms that come above all others. And when we allow safety, health, and peace of mind to be traded for other, lesser, freedoms, then we aren’t really free at all.

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.” (United States Constitution)

So basically, to each his own. We are free to speak as we wish, so long as it does not entice violence or promote treason, you are free to say what is on your mind. And we are free to so in a public manner.

“The amendment to the U.S. Constitution that guarantees freedom of religion, freedom of expression (including speech, press, assembly, association, and belief), and freedom to petition the government for a redress of grievances” (Nolos Plain English Law Dictionary)

The freedom to practice and preach religion iw protected in this Amenment, With good reason too. Without this, the governemnt could choose one religion for alll of the constituents… that is scary.

I am grateful for the freedom to express my feelings and opinions. Religion is not my forte, but I have no problems with the words being spoken and shared.

I am also grateful for the freedom to speak with free will, I can argue politics, family, love, money, all of the thiings that happen in life without fear of persecution for going against the grain.

The 1st Amendment also gives us the right to tell our governement when they are doing wrong, this gives the right to petition with bills and laws for the good of the people. Pretty nifty…

Isn’t America…. awesome!?

References:

United States Constitution. Amendment 1.

First Amendment (Cornell University’s Legal Information Institute)

Definition provided by Nolo’s Plain-English Law Dictionary.

What slogan would be so offensive that it would ignite moral indignation in Canada? This is after all the country in which a prime minister could get away with giving the single finger salute to the press, and where a political party could run in a federal election on the platform of ending the prohibition on marijuana. What T-shirt slogan would offend us? Something about giving illegal drugs to puppies, or a satanic rock band clubbing baby seals?

No, the T-shirt making national headlines today reads, “Life is wasted without Jesus.”

According to the CBC, Swinimer was told repeatedly by his school principal to stop wearing the shirt, but the grade 12 student refused to comply. He told CBC news that the principal would have accepted a shirt with the slogan, “My life is wasted without Jesus.” That would be his personal opinion. As is, the slogan is an attack on the beliefs of other students.

“But I didn’t go for that because I have my rights as a Canadian citizen.” Swinimer said. He says that he will continue to wear the shirt and is prepared to be suspended the rest of the year.

Nancy Pynch-Worthylake, the school board superintendent, told the CBC that some students and teachers found the T-shirt offensive.

“When one is able or others are able to interpret it as ‘If you don’t share my belief then your life is wasted,’ that can be interpreted by some as being inappropriate,” she said.

So, to get this straight, a slogan needs to be clearly designated as a personal opinion, or else someone might interpret it as an offense against them personally, and that would be inappropriate, so therefore wearing a T-shirt with that slogan merits a suspension from school?

Swinimer says that the T-shirt is an expression of his beliefs, and he won’t stop wearing it.

“I believe there are things that are bigger than me. And I think that I need to stand up for the rights of people in this country, and religious rights and freedom of speech.”

The school board is now looking for some guidance on the matter. It hopes to bring in an expert to help mediate the dispute with Swinimer, his family and church supporters.

“We’ll be looking for some people with understanding in this area to help us with that,” Pynch-Worthylake said.

I’m sure they will find someone. After all, Canada is a nation built on compromise, where anything is tolerated except intolerance. I’ll keep you posted.

Growing up in America, I’ve learned about democracy and the freedoms we have, or are suppose to have.  I was enlisted in the Marine Corps for four years, and am re-enlisting into the National Guard.  So, I’ve served my country before and am about to again.  In the military, you don’t have the freedoms of civilians, no freedom of speech, you give and receive orders and that’s it.  Just a basic life.

Now I notice that we don’t have freedom of speech anymore.  You make a wrong statement, your arrested and persecuted.  The banks own most homes and businesses.  Oh look, we’ve turned into a socialist government.  A wrong look or a misplaced video tape, instant inprisonment.

Social services even think they run the country now, ruining peoples’ lives.  They take kids from good parents, and leave the kids with the parents who are alcoholics and drug addicts.  When and where did this country go so wrong so fast?

If anyone can answer that, please feel free.

            ACTA wouldn’t be so controversial if it didn’t make such ridiculous demands. The actual text is very complex and hard to grasp, so it may fool a lot of people into thinking that it isn’t as bad as it really is. Anonymous gives us a real-world analogy to describe what ACTA is on the Internet. “Imagine you take a cooking class, and you go home and teach the recipe to your wife. According to ACTA, you’re now both criminals because you shared the information for free when only YOU paid to learn” (Anonymous, 2011). So basically if someone shares any piece of ‘intellectual property’, as stated in ACTA, they will be fined and sent to prison. This goes a little overboard to say the least. But there’s no way they could track who that shared the information right? “And you’re right. Under current law, no one would. But ACTA deals with this through excessive surveillance. All your communications will be monitored, and not only yours. Your family, your friends will be observed, just in case” (Anonymous, 2011). The government will be spying on everyone’s personal emails, phone calls, texts, Facebook, blogs, and any other medium of communication. That’s really crossing the line, and it’s not just Anonymous that’s outspoken against ACTA.

            Stallman (2012) says: The Internet needs some rules, but who should decide them?        Traffic rules for cars should             be decided democratically by the people, not written     secretly by railroads. The Internet rules should be decided democratically by the people,    with human rights as the first      priority, and the people must reserve the right to relax rules             if they prove too strict…. copyright companies have too much power already; they have             made copyright too strict. They are not satisfied and seek more power through ACTA,        but that would be a change in the wrong direction.

There’s really only a small percentile who benefit from ACTA, while the rest of the Internet users suffer irrational laws. The big copyright holders benefit the most from ACTA, which is why most of ACTA’s endorsers are companies such as Walt Disney, Time Warner, and Sony, and they want to do everything in their power to siphon every dollar out of the public, leading a fake crusade against piracy as their excuse. The rich just want to get richer.

            As previously stated, ACTA is willing to go as far as monitoring every medium of communication people use. This is an invasion of privacy, and  citizens of the United States are guaranteed rights by the government, including the right to privacy. “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized” (US Const., amend. IV). People could be sentenced up to fifty years in prison for sharing a song, and they’re put in the same prisons as murderers and rapists. The founding fathers believed that everyone should feel safe in their own home, but how can someone feel safe if they know that everything they say is being spied upon in hopes that the government will find something incriminating. But of course the government doesn’t tell the public they’re eavesdropping because they know they shouldn’t be.  They also have other companies do their dirty work for them. ” -ISPs, or Internet Service Providers, (such as Comcast and Verizon) will be mandated to monitor what websites you browse on the internet. There will be no ‘InPrivate’ button and everything you do, from playing games to typing in personal information online, will be watched” (Chopped, 2010). What more is there to say? It seems like everyone who uses the Internet is against ACTA. Unbelievably, ACTA has the guts to go as far as saying that the Constitution doesn’t mean anything! “One of the worst things about ACTA is due to it being global, it does not need to follow the Constitution. Therefore, there is no right to trial and no freedom of speech” (Sackett, 2012). So what can be said? ACTA has no regard for existing laws or regulations such as the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Doesn’t it say in the Constitution that no law is allowed to be passed that contradicts the Constitution? And wasn’t the Constitution in place before ACTA? So therefore, it would be extremely irresponsible for the lawmakers in the US to pass ACTA, and at that point, the government stops working for the people and becomes destructive in its ends.

            Last but not least, ACTA will not be effective in stopping piracy. First, there are flaws within the document itself.

            Kader Arif (2012) tells us “First is the article 11 of the agreement, which states that the right holder has the right to ask for information “regarding any person involved in any           aspect of the infringement or alleged infringement”. This article is worded in such wide    and unclear terms that it leaves a great deal of room for interpretation. In practice, almost             anyone could be linked to an infringement of intellectual property rights and face             criminal sanctions under such a vague definition.”

In other words for example, if a website is reported to have copyright infringing material then it will be shut down immediately without an investigation. A website is a person’s property, and the government is supposed to protect the people’s property. The government is suppose to do a lot of things actually. Even Anonymous (2011) agrees that the term “intellectual property” is too loose.

            “The Oxford English Dictionary defines a counterfeit as: ‘a fraudulent imitation of            something else’. But when a file is copied on the internet it is exactly the same as the original, not an imitation. And it is not stolen since the original is not removed. The   information is simply being shared free of charge. So counterfeiting has nothing to do      with it. Let us explain. ‘Intellectual property’ is never really defined within ACTA. It     could mean trademarks, or it could mean any idea or information which later could be        copyrighted, restricted and criminalized.”

Basically it sounds like ACTA’s gone off the deep end. It will give the government the power to arrest anyone without due process, and on a range of things it considers to be ‘copyright infringing material’ and ‘intellectual property’. It gives itself a wide berth to tackle all possible things that can be interpreted as piracy, but most of the time, it will just incriminate innocent people who are normally against piracy themselves. And besides, there’s no way ACTA can stop all piracy no matter what laws it implements. Ghanei (2012) lists several different ways of hiding your IP address to appear ‘invisible’ to the Internet; “TOR (The Onion Router), is a system intended to enable online anonymity. TOR client software routes Internet traffic through a worldwide volunteer network of servers in order to conceal a user’s location or usage from anyone conducting network surveillance or traffic analysis.” This TOR hides the person’s IP behind many virtual private servers which substitute their IP for theirs, so any action they do such as downloading a song appears done have been done from the server. Those servers are located in countries where said activities are legal, and since the Internet is a global community, no government can do anything against it. So if someone really wanted to, they can pirate anything they want, and no evidence would be able to trace to them.

            ACTA needs to be seriously reconsidered because it is unreasonably strict in its consequences, it disregards any ‘rights’ people have and is unconstitutional, and finally it can’t do anything to stop online piracy. If they catch someone who has downloaded a song illegally, they will be fined and arrested without due process, and they will be sentenced up to fifty years in prison, the same prisons that house felons. ACTA has already passed in many European countries, but we’ve got to let the government know that nobody messes with the Internet. The Internet is ours. So spread the word about ACTA, because politicians signed this deal behind closed doors. Boycott companies who support ACTA, and write letters to our Representatives and Senators reminding them that the government is by the people, for the people.

Anonymous. (2011). Say NO to ACTA. Retrieved from http://onceuponourblog.blogspot.com/2012/01/against-teh-anti-counterfeiting-trade.html

Anonymous. (2012). ACTA: Stop the Kraken. Retrieved from http://pastebin.com/BiGThwTS

Stallman, R. (2012). ACTA threatens your freedom. Retrieved from http://stallman.org/articles/acta-freedom.html

U.S. Const., amend. IV, § 1.

Chopped, H. (2010, July 30). Acta [Online forum comment]. Retrieved from http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=acta

Sackett, C. (2012, February 29). [Web log message]. Retrieved from http://whitneyupdate.com/?p=1942

Arif, K. (2012). Either acta is useless, or it’s a threat. Retrieved from http://blogs.fsfe.org/gerloff/2012/02/15/either-acta-is-useless-or-it-is-a-threat/

Anonymous. (2012). ACTA: Stop the Kraken. Retrieved from http://pastebin.com/BiGThwTS

Ghanei, T. (2012). Reasons Why ACTA is Ineffective. Retrieved from http://computersight.com/communication-networks/security/resons-why-acta-is-inaffective/

Delegates (Photo credit: sk8geek)

However, it has been used to enforce a one party government, so, in this situation sometimes it is impossible to remove a tyrant other than by force. Also, clear rules, a free press, freedom of religion (to avoid prejudice), and the right of free speech avoids a lack of transparency and corruption. The United States’ democratic system was based on the British parliamentary system and at first appeared to have limited or even avoided direct elections (as if the common people weren’t good enough or smart enough to elect their own leaders), however, the delegate system has proven almost illusory or irrelevant, as although each state by direct election throws all its delegates to the winner, because there are so many states and delegates (numbered in proportion to population) the general result is that the president is directly elected. Direct election, without delegates, is most clearly an expression of the will of the people, while a delegate system can give you a winner who did not secure the majority of the votes, an evil to be avoided.

Delegates (Photo credit: sk8geek)

Term limits are an important way to avoid tyranny. No one person has more power than an individual voter under this system. Parliamentary systems need term limits for its leaders; however, an attempt should be made, in the interests of stability, to provide some term length. Four years works in the United States. Because the Supreme Court and the Senate and House of Representatives exist to wield their own dampening power, a president does not have unlimited power, but must play the game, ordinarily. Rich versus poor—conservatives versus liberal, split the party system in the United States, and minor parties have an important role in influencing decisions.

<script type=”text/javascript”></script><script type=”text/javascript”src=”http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/show_ads.js”></script>

Words that someone could view as annoying or offensive on Facebook or Twitter, could be deemed a criminal offence under a bi partisan bill that’s moving swiftly.

The bill would update telephone harassment and stalking laws by adding the use of computers or smart-phones, this could help victims of on line stalking and harassment, whose cases have been dismissed in court because state law has not caught up with the technology. This could have people thinking twice before leaving a comment on a website.

Speaking to annoy or offend is not a crime, but there is a need to protect people from one on one harassment, this is not meant to affect protected free speech or speech authorised by law, if the speech becomes law, speech done in satire, political debate or even sports trash talk could get people in unnecessary legal trouble.

For somebody who posts on their Facebook page, who happens to be a home team fan, and whoever their rivals are, they say” your team stinks and i hope you lose”, is that an intent to offend or annoy, there is a lot of common banter this could potentially apply to.

Across the country more than 30 states have laws against harassment and stalking that reference electronic communications, several states have legislation in place similar to the proposal awaiting a final vote.

Harassment laws need to keep up with technology, to face prosecution comments on-line  they need to be directed at a certain target.

Arizona State University professor who teaches constitutional law, said that without changes the statute’s wording leaves it vulnerable to being overturned.

This law may lead to some self censoring, but does not think it will result in a rush of prosecutions.

Image via CrunchBase

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Taken from the following web site. http://www.ratical.org/co-globalize/BillOfRights.html#1

Explanation

There shall be freedom of speech. There shall be freedom of and from religion. There shall be true freedom of the press. There shall be a right of people to form a peaceful protest  without getting hurt or arrested. There shall also be the freedom to petition the government for redress of grievances.

More Translations of the 1st Bill Of Rights

Freedom of speech means you can say whatever you want to say within reason. If your speech is slandering someone like say calling them a “homewrecker” or a “slut” then you shouldn’t say those things. However, there should be freedom of speech/expression. If I want to say “Hey, I agree with this person on something but I don’t agree with you on that specific subject.” this should be allowed. If a person says “Hey, I don’t believe in god.” That should be allowed. If a person says “Hey, I believe in god!” This should be allowed.

Now to freedom of and from religion which many people don’t understand. The freedom of religion applies to all religious faiths and not just your own. There is also freedom from religion. If I choose not to believe in your god that is my right. If I choose not to believe in any god that is my right.

In order to have any religion rule over a country that is called a theocracy, and although many religions preach love, in any theocracy and any religion you will always end up with extremism of power. Extremism of power is when the clergy, pope, pastor, priest, whatever is the dominant force in your religion forces his/her control over you.

This is another reason why I am a strong supporter in the separation of church and state.

Here are some examples of extremism of power.

Dark Ages

Witch Burnings

Spanish Inquisition

Crusades

The Red Scare

The Taliban

The 9/11 Attack on the World Trade Center

Religious Indoctrination of Christianity, Islam, or countless other religions.

Atheist Indoctrination.

I can go on but I think this covers a handful of examples.

Freedom of the press should always remain free. Unfortunately, this does not happen today. Our press is controlled by corporations I think, but I can be wrong about who exactly is pulling the strings of the American press.

Anyway, freedom of the press is supposed to be that the press can report whatever they find to the mass populace. This means that reporters are supposed to report their stories with objective viewpoints and let the viewers decide for themselves. This doesn’t always happen. Instead, most reporters are told what to say in a news outlet. Whether these views are objective viewpoints or not, is up for debate.

My example of this would be the most common example used which is “Fox News” or what I have heard it dubbed as “Faux News.” Of course, all the other news programs in my own experience have also been rigged such as news12, eyewitness news, cnn, and more.

Now to the protest part of this right which is the right to protest peacefully. I will use the “Occupy Wall Street” protest as my example.

The people in the Occupy Wall Street protest are protesting corporate greed. This is my understanding of it anyway and I admit I can be wrong. The people of this protest are allowed to gather together in order to protest. This is legal. What is not legal is banning them from the area. It is their right to protest. I don’t think they are against capitalism either, just the fact that capitalism is triumphing over democracy. I think they are against greedy rich people who think they are above everyone else when in reality they are not. Once again I can be wrong but this is my own understanding of it.

Finally, the right to petition the government. I have signed numerous petitions on gay rights, animal rights, women’s rights and then some. I even started a petition on what I felt was discrimination towards gays. Of course, some of my family members most likely all hated it because most of them were raised on religious indoctrination and only have one viewpoint instead of looking at both sides of an issue. This is probably why I don’t talk to most of them either. Once again I can be wrong here but this is what it feels like to me.

So yes, this is my own understanding of the 1st bill in the bill of rights. I will most likely touch upon the 2nd bill of rights tomorrow.

Thank you for your time!

I don’t know about anyone else but I’d be the first to raise my hand in acknowledging that I don’t understand women, and I’ve been married three times and divorced three times. But here we are reading about a bunch of politicians who “claim” to know what is best for women. My personal opinion is that a woman is the one who would know what is best for her and her body and leave politics and religion out of it but no, the government has to stick their nose in it (no pun intended). We have presidential candidates opening their mouths and sticking their foot so far in that it’d take a team of surgeons to remove it. One candidate said an abortion is out of the question, even in cases of rape and incest. Another said women in the military should expect to be raped and accept it and yet another said, the media published his remarks, that if a woman is raped, she should pray for forgiveness. Forgive what, for being a woman?

As for religion getting into politics, it is out of control. When a Catholic priest can stand up and tell his congregation to vote for a certain candidate, that’s where separation of state and church ceases. I’m not a practicing religious man but I do believe in God so I don’t go to church on a regular basis. I’m classified as a backyard Baptist and I’m damn proud of it. If someone wants to stand on a street corner and preach, let him, I just don’t have to stop and listen. I don’t believe that religion should be a criteria for the presidency nor should that religion be a benchmark for public policy. It is my understanding the the sitting President represents all the people, not just a select few, as it is now. If a certain religion wants to campaign for a candidate, then they should lose their tax exempt status and register as a lobbyist.

As we’re getting into the back stretch of this “pick me to run against Obama” race, we’re now down to four candidates; Newt Gingrich, Ron Paul, Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum, all want to be the Republican partys candidate for President. The only problem is, none of them are qualified to run a country. They have shown themselves to be self-centered, egotistical and only out to enrich themselves at taxpayer expense. They are all accomplished liars with slick backed hair and a toothy smile. I wouldn’t trust any of them to shake my hand without one hand on my wallet and I’d count my fingers afterwards. Much like Obama four years ago, they are being expertly handled behind the curtain by big money and special interest groups, those who stand to profit the most from their candidate being elected. In short, this is a country that can be bought.

I especially like their new tactic if they disagree with a blogger, sue them and its David against Goliath. It is an intimidation tactic that works all too often only because its big money against the little guy and justice depends on how much money you have. I was threatened four years ago for speaking my mind and I anticipate the same happening this year, maybe more so. I didn’t back down then and I won’t back down now. I will continue calling them as I see them and I hope other bloggers will do the same. There is strength in numbers.