Intergalactic Summit

A fair line of questioning, but ultimately one borne out of a misconception.

There is freedom of speech in the Federation, but freedoms are inherently limited. There is a difference between "freedom" in a legal sense and "freedom" in a captivity sense.

"Freedom" in the legal sense of the Federation implies a measure of liberty from external regulation and control. However, by necessity, that measure of liberty is finite. It is important to understand the need for this limitation. Were it not present, then there would be absolutely no security of information in the Federation, there would be no legal recourse for the profaning of an individual's integrity and character, no legal recourse for breaches of contract or falsification of information.

Federal citizens enjoy the freedom to voice their opinions publicly and openly. They can verbally oppose and speak ill of their delegates and elected officials, they can voice discontent of the legal system and corporations. They government will not visit your home with a secret assault force because you state that President Roden is a warmongering bastard unfit to govern a playground, let alone a country. These are all liberties you can exercise within the "freedom of speech."

There is a line, however, a necessary one. As I illustrated earlier, there is a regulation on the transfer of information to various parties. An individual giving security clearance codes to an unauthorized party would be subject to legal recourse. An individual that profanes another's integrity or character can be taken to court by the offended party for slander and, if found guilty, the offender would owe recompense. Threats can be (and often are) considered grounds for reasonable suspicion in legal proceedings.

It is a constant balance between the liberties and freedoms of the individual versus the needs, safety and security of the whole.

Kim. I know that they're using big and difficult concepts here. So you may have trouble understanding it...
Let me try to help.

Freedom of speech in the Federation:
You are free to say whatever you like, however you are also free to suffer consequences that are commensurate with the harm your words have or could do.
( Commensurate : Adjective - Corresponding in size or degree; in proportion.
Synonyms : proportional - proportionate - commensurable - adequate )

Freedom of speech in today's State.
You are free to say what you like, but if Heth doesn't like it, he will send the home guard or dragonaur to shoot you in the face no matter the validity of your statement.

Hope that helps clear things up for you.

---

Seven Tribes.
One Matari People.

I suspect you are more intelligent than this and are simply grasping for argument's sake. I will oblige, this once.

First, I outlined very clearly the difference in "freedom of speech" as practiced by the Federation and how it differs from nations (such as the Caldari State) that do not have it. Furthermore, to assert that placing any form of restraint or regulation on something is akin to a gilded cage is foolhardy, at best. As expressed earlier (also by myself), the lack of regulation and restraint leads only to chaos, there must be a system of accountability and responsibility in any communal system (of which governance is a part).

Please refrain from playing coy and actually objectively consider what is being said.

There may be a misconception my part, but there is certainly one on yours. The Federal government does not stand between an individual and the consequences of their words, it enforces those consequences through the legal system. I thought I had explained this quite adequately but apparently I have not.

To clarify: Of course you are free to do all things in the State and suffer the consequences, the same is true of absolutely any governance system. The government, short of controlling you (literally) cannot dictate your words and actions; thus, you are always free to speak and act as you will. However, what all governments do is enforce the consequences of your words and actions (either through police, military or legal action).

The difference lies not in the cause and effect relationship but rather in the breadth of scope that is afforded before such governmental involvement occurs. The Federation employs a much larger measure of liberty toward an individual's speech (and even their actions) than nearly any (if not all) other governments. There are still consequences to every word and action (social, peer, employment, etc) but these consequences do not stem from the government until the regulatory line has been breached.

Another nugget provided to us for our entertaiment and cross analytical study by Diana Kim. I'll be contacting a production studio to turn her works of art into a holovid. I'm hoping to get same person that directed Ship of Fools and Spring Time for Heth to direct it.

Ah. I see part of the misconception. I was not speaking necessarily of governmental intervention - more of the government's role in preventing private citizens and companies from intervening.

In the State, whilst there are things you can say that will get you in trouble with the government, the vast majority of consequences from speech come in the form of peer reinforcement. If you speak sedition or preach anarchy, you are unlikely to have the boots put to you by the Security Services - instead you're far more likely to suffer ostracism. Your children refused access to the best schools. Your career strangled. Yourself persona non grata at social events. People will cease to refer to you as 'haan/haani' and your opinion or company will not be sought.

In the Federation, of course, the government acts to insulate a citizen from these consequences of reckless speech.

So, if an employee in the Federation speaks out against the political party espoused by his co-workers, then his employer is free to refuse him promotion and squeeze him out of his job?

Oh. My apologies then.

Indeed! This is as far as I go in support of Kim-haani's stance on freedom of speech - that the difference between our peoples here is founded in the cultural roots of our societies and is merely different, not incapable of co-existence.

I'm pleased that we were able to get there, together!

On this we agree completely. You honor me with your temperance and clarity, Tuulinen. I look forward to further discussion.

Unfortunately, that answer is not as factual as I would like to see, such division on "freedom of speech" and "not freedom of speech" is based on your world view and controversed. How is this so? Simple.

In the State, dissenting is a violation of national security and, according to your words "not protected under the freedom of speech because freedoms are necessarily and reasonably limited to ensure the security and safety of the greater community and the liberties and freedoms of other individuals".