[Aaron]

I suppose in some cases, but rarely, speech should be limited somewhat. Some things can be very hurtful or just waiting to cause an uproar. Such should be avoided, but I'm not sure how it would be implemented.

[©allum]

freedom of speech is what allowed America to advance at such a fast rate.

America advanced quickly?

Blacks didn't get equal rights until the 1960's and even still are discriminated against a fair bit, women didn't get the vote in the US for a while after other countries and America still went around parading, acting like the 'Champion of Democracy', but domestically was not giving all its citizens equal rights.

America's been around for two hundred years and some decades, whereas countries in Europe have been around for what, two millennia? more than that, i think. and you've still got race riots breaking out in France, and whatever else that i won't bother looking up right now. yeah, in America we've got our fair share of problems, but at least people are allowed to speak up against them (whether that changes anything is another question - although Martin Luther King Jr. and various others did seem to have some success in that department).

at any rate, with or without freedom of speech, America certainly took more initiative than did other British colonies (maybe with the exception of India), choosing to fight for independence rather than wait a couple more centuries to wait for freedom to be handed to it.

and that's why America did advance so quickly. if not so much in social aspects, then in economic and military ones. America's had the rest of the world struggling to catch up - though now China's actually starting to catch up, with its people having reproduced like rabbits. i'm not sure about the population growth now, though. i heard they imposed a heavy tax or something on having more children than one, so families throw babies into rivers or something. of course, with this, i'm going on hearsay.

Yes, but as America was established in the 1700's, it would not have been started off with the same social situations as most European countries were. America only developed quickly compared to other nations because it is a younger country. If any other western nation was established in the 1900's, such as Czechoslovakia, it would have similar social development as a country established 1000 years ago in the same region, assuming their governments were the same, or similar.

[Kaezion]

you're going to have to be a little bit clearer. not anything against your writing, it's just that i personally can't follow your line of reasoning.

if you are arguing that America was given an advantage to begin with, you are correct. America had the benefit of experiencing British rule under which rights and freedoms were restricted. having experienced such restrictions firsthand, Americans knew that liberties and rights are beneficial not only to the people of a nation, but to the nation itself. a handful of society's elite can only get so much done. if you allow the whole of the nation to contribute to the nation's progress (by freedom of expression), you progress a whole lot faster. besides, these freedoms keep the people contented; discontented people have a way of thwarting their own government (as the Americans well knew!). this was even mentioned in the Declaration of Independence (or the Constitution, i'm not entirely sure) - that the people had the right to overthrow their government and create a new one, if the current one is not doing its job. this was the first time that a nation's purpose and its basic principles were based upon the people within it instead of the people ruling it. in retrospect, doesn't this seem much more reasonable, to have the nation guided not by a few people at the top, but by the majority of the actual people that are affected by national decisions? if we are to allow this to happen, then we have to guarantee the people's freedom of expression, so that their opinions and contributions may not be silenced by those elite few who might not like how the country is being steered.

of course, i'm not saying that America did allow the whole of the nation to contribute in national matters at first. actually, in terms of social history, America bears one of the darkest stains - slavery. again, America's had its fair share of problems, and still does. there were social situations, some reasonable, some necessary, and some just plain racist. but, whereas in other nations this social situation would have stagnated or even worsened, in America, this situation got better because people were allowed to speak out.

the freedom of speech releases the creative energies of the people within the nation. even if the leaders of the nation are reluctant to go along, it is inevitable that, with freedom of speech, the people will get what they want, which is most of the time beneficial for the nation as a whole. along with that, however, you get some people who abuse this freedom. that's inevitable. but weigh the benefits here; is it worth it to cut off a country from a wealth of opportunities that freedom of speech provides, just to stop some people from pissing other people off by saying stuff that's untrue and/or offensive?

and as for America parading around as champions of democracy, everyone knew that it was a facade. it was American imperialism, and this act of establishing democracy around the world was just a pretense under which America gained international influence. yes, it was hypocritical of America to go around promoting freedom when its own citizens were in such bad shape. however, the people of America were under no illusion - they knew that this was a pretext, and they even supported it. why? because gaining such international influence was beneficial for their country. of course, you had those intellectual idealists like Mark Twain opposing such things. and they had good points, if observed from a moral/intellectual standpoint. from a practical viewpoint, however, such hypocrisies were necessary for the advancement of the nation.

when all is said and done, you cannot refute the fact that America has come the longest way in the shortest period of time. what i'm saying is, the freedom of speech had a lot to do with it and if we scrap it/weaken that freedom now, then we lose our momentum (what little of it we have left, at least - i'm pretty sure that our golden years are over).

This post has been edited by Kaezion: 23 November 2005 - 05:24 AM

[©allum]

I was just pointing out that when a country is founded, it isn't thrown back into the dark ages.

[Kaezion]

oh. i see.
still, my point stands. you have a mother country 1000s of years old, and a colony only centuries old. according to you, much of that experience from the mother coutry would carry over to the colony, and that colony will jumpstart off on a social/economic/technological footing that has taken millennia to develop.
America is a different case. the founders developed a wholly new constitution when America split off from Britain. there was new ground to break, new hardships to overcome, and new precedents to set. so, although America did have quite a few advantages compared to starting off from scratch, it had to work its way to catch up to the highly (socially, economically, etc.) developed countries. the fact that it did catch up, and even exceeded, its mother country (and every other country, actually) suggests that there was something superior about how America was run. i'm saying that the fact that the people of America were given a lot of liberties, including freedom of speech, had a lot to do with this superiority.

[Rohtaren]

i generally try to limit my personal freedom of speech and think about the thing i say first, before i say them