Intergalactic Summit

Of course it is, your original topic was on the Federation's understanding and use of the term "freedom of speech," this will inherently define the context of this discussion as being according to a Federal "worldview." Unless you have changed the context of this discussion without warning, at which point the entire discussion is null and void.



The State doesn't share the Federation's definition or protection of "freedom of speech" within its borders so it is little wonder that it would enforce a different definition from the Federation. However, you have adequately demonstrated precisely my point. If speaking a dissenting opinion is a "matter of national security" in the State, then the State enforces a conformity of belief and opinion which defines the amount of freedom of speech all those under its jurisdiction possess. This is a substantially smaller measurement of freedom of speech than that established and protected within the Federation.

Hence the purpose of this entire line of discussion to begin with.

What I want to do, is to gain understanding for everyone, based on facts, not world views, so everyone can accept it, not only those who were trained by gallentes!


How would you "protect" "freedom of speech" if it is, according to your words, regardless everywhere?...

All this discussion really makes my head hurt. All these freedoms, that are not freedoms, measurable freedoms and gradations of things that can't be defined... Maybe I should just stop it and return to simple shooting gallentes?

It's funny that Diana Kim is talking about "freedom of speech" when she quite evidently doesn't understand what any of those three words actually means.

Then again, Diana Kim is such a mental incompetent I question whether she knows what any given word actually means.

If you would like to participate in discussion, you must ask proper questions, and, of course, you must start it with apologies.


Well, I don't think this would be a good way to define freedom, since liberty is a synonym for freedom. It is sounds like one thing from one old story. Let's name this thing 'freedom'. When a protagonist was looking what does 'freedom' means, he found, that 'freedom is what you do freedoming with'. And when he searched for 'freedoming', he found that 'freedoming is an act that you do with freedom'. Thus, I can say, that by your foundation you just pushed me into deeper confusion.

And if you would like me to treat 'liberty' as not synonym to 'freedom', than, I am afraid, liberty to me is more like an offensive word, which meaning I wouldn't describe in public. Let's say, that liberty of speech for me would mean a flow of words, that would be surely censored by my translator.


Well, in the State laws are focused on keeping things out of harm for another individuals or institutions as well, but we don't operate terms like 'freedom' in official papers. And, generally, in the State you can do whatever you want, if it doesn't hurt your neighbors, friendly citizens, co-workers, your employers, your corporation and your State. (of course you must remember, that poorly working or being late hurts your employer, that behaving yourself poorly hurts image of your employer, etc etc). Same goes for speech. Even you speak not for your employer, but for yourself, your speech can hurt others, including your employer, and even whole State. Planting seeds of dissension is hurting your corporation and State directly! It can even cause drop of production rates!


Again freedom through liberty, you really want my head to hurt, do you?
I can't understand how "promoting individuality" fits here and if it really should be considered as a merit or a goal. And I would like to stay away, at least here, from discussion about individuality versus conformity. I don't think it would help to understand what you can speak and what you can't. Lets make things more simple rather than more complex. I really liked your idea about starting from the foundation, so lets not clog it with unrelated concepts, okay?


Necessity to... whom or what? To me, to you, to the State, or Federation, or maybe Mr.Roden? There can't be just necessity just for necessity. Just as law can't be made just for law. Laws are tools for peoples, for societies to reach goals, to enhance themselves, to prosper and progress. And when you are prohibited to say something, it is because your words will hinder progress of your society or will cause split in society (that itself will cause hindrance in progress and development as well). Of course, hurting each member of society is equal to hurting society as a whole, because society will need every member, provided it wants to be part of this society and work for common goal.

If you say too many things that your government doesn't approve of...

In the State you will be disciplined, dishonored and probably get your pay docked.

In the Empire you will likely face an inquisition (religious) or have to answer to the nobles directly above you (political).

In the Republic you a tribal elder will have you exiled into the wastelands to die, or something along those lines.

In the Federation the Black Eagles will stick a black bag over your head in the middle of the night and you're never seen from again.


Let me know when this "freedom speech" becomes real thing and then we can debate it.

The freedom of speech. I am becoming totally sick as **** from that whole freedom of speech. Entire broadcasts are planned full of it. Someone has an opinion and oohh, someone else has another opinion. The only thing that freedom of speech does is that every opinion becomes totally meaningless. Abolish, and who still dares to open his mouth then, that would be someone I would be willing to listen to. Then it gets interesting.
If a furrier is foul, it gets put down. If a politician is foul, he gets personal security. I am for freedom of speech, but against personal security. Maybe then people will think a just little longer before they open their mouths.

-Heto Samenas, comedian

Of course it makes your head spin since this entire "explanation" is a creation of your imagination. Your assertion that the laws and boundaries of the Federation are invisible is objectively false, the Charter and Constitution of the Federation stand as clear proof of that.



I appreciate that you've assumed, without precedent I might add, what I would consider credible. Furthermore, the transcripts you've linked are filled with ambiguity and secretiveness. As with all forms of media, even those considered "approved" by the Federation, it is up to the individual to accept them as fact or fiction without alternate ways to verify and validate the information. Your final assertion that I would forget them as fast as I read them for fear of my life is as ridiculous as the rest of your claims and based entirely on your own vaunted perception without any factual basis.



Once again, the laws of the Federation (including the establishment of the powers and authority of the Federal government and the powers and authorities of the mostly autonomous member states) are clearly outlined in the Charter and Constitution. Your continued assertion that the laws are unwritten only emphasizes your blatant ignorance on the topic.



Right, then where do the stories come from, I wonder? If these things happen and suddenly everyone develops amnesia, you'd never hear about them. At all. Ever. However, since there have been reports of similar incidents (though not nearly in the way you describe them) and the existence of the media, such an occurrence is quite literally impossible.



Congratulations. You have wasted a significant portion of my time and patience and managed to validate exactly zero of your claims. In fact, you've only gone on a blatantly ignorant rant filled with your own imagined propaganda and managed to reference one singular incident shrouded entirely in ambiguity as verification of one individual's discontent and perception of a single aspect of the Federation government.

Go on, begone, I'm done with you.

Unfortunately, in the State governmental institutions are only starting to develop. It is only Provists who are actually stimulating cooperation between major powers.

And speaking about freedom of speech, most likely you will be punished not for what "your government" doesn't approve, but what your superior doesn't approve (or rules of your institution).

Quite counterwise, sir.
I find your arguments full of personal attacks, and ignored them because they weren't professional. Thus I could say, that it is your approach that made your arguments invalid and ignored.

If you want to participate in discussion, please reiterate your approach and ask correct questions.

Pro-tip: starting with apologies will highly increase your chances of receiving answers on questions you want answered.

Oh, and one more thing, if you come here just to "win arguments", I suggest you better just consider you "won it", leave it and do not hinder the discussion, and do not waste my time, thanks in advance!

Diana.
Demanding that, if you don't like someone, they have to begin any statement with an apology is, especially coming from you, simply a joke.

You have ignored every level attempt to explain your misconception regarding freedom of speech since the beginning of this thread, instead attempting to colour the conversation to yet another blind rage against the Federation.

If you are sincere in your wish for open debate, you have to keep an open mind and actually engage in the debate. This is something you seem to have difficulty doing.

While I congratulate you on the attempt to broaden your horizons by asking the questions you asked. You have to realise that when you ask questions like this, you may not like the true answers.
You also have to accept the truths for what they are, even if you find them distasteful.

So, while I wish you the best in this endeavour, I am uncertain whether or not you are capable of either of these things. It is, however, my sincere hope that this is a sign that you have begun, at least, to become willing to learn about the wider cluster and it's people.

---

Seven Tribes.
One Matari People.