TED Conversations

Mike Aparicio

This conversation is closed.

Is Freedom of expression growing?

Is there an obvious conflict of opinion about Expression and Communication Freedom, with strong ethical implications.
What do you think?
I think it is highly relevant to have a conversation on the topic!
Do you?


Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • Aug 17 2013: Yes the Freedom of expression is growing but if you are asking to have the Freedom to say anything without someone questioning the statement, that is not Freedom but a degree of dictatorship of someone asking the world to accept or tolerate anything I say. It could be racially intolerant, biased beyond belief, insulting.,

    I believe you can say anything if you are willing to accept the consequences and are willing to fight for your opinion.
    • thumb
      Aug 17 2013: Hi Wayne,

      I am wondering if we misunderstand what Freedom stands for.
      My take on it is that Freedom is where FEAR is not.
      Meaning Freedom is the ability to speak the TRUTH.
      Not profanities and endless arguments or insults.
      What is TRUTH, might you ask?
      Certainly not what this world will try and make you believe.
      You must find that out for yourself.
      Be a Light unto yourself. Not follow like sheep.
      You will know it when you are completely and absolutely Honest with yourself and others.
      Then, from there you can speak, from the Heart, or the Truth.

      But like I have mentioned before, TRUTH benefits no one, but lies do.
      Truth benefits only in relation to SANITY. Not your bank account.
      And most people would like to benefit one way or another.
      But mostly, TRUTH benefits ALL.
      Means we do not get divided by lies.
      Truth cannot divide, but Lies can.
      Truth serves all Humanity, but Lies serve the few.

      Until we all learn to speak the Truth, there will be no Freedom because there will be no Strength and Unity.
      • Aug 17 2013: and who will decide the truth - I was in a Philosophy of Religion course and we were discussing the Book of Job - an individual who was taking the course stated that here is what Father XXX said and that is the only true interpretation of the Book of Job. I have no problem saying that was that individual's truth and does not bother me. What does bother me was the claim that it was the truth and the truth.

        I feel that through discussion and the exchange of ideas do we come closer to understanding - ultimate truth i will let others try for, understanding is what i hope for.
        • thumb
          Aug 17 2013: Hi Wayne,

          Thank you for your participation in the dialogue. This is not about right or wrong, as right and wrong implies choice, and when dealing with TRUTH, it is only one, one truth, not two, you cannot choose. Only a confused mind chooses. The Truth is not according to anyone, but to itself. We only need to mirror the Truth, or witness it. In that, there must be no self interest, or any attempt to distort. Our Ego, or expectations, distort it because we see what we expect rather than what is. "To expect, is to anticipate, therefor to miss the Obvious" - I have coined this phrase.

          I am not asking you for a second to believe what I say. See for yourself, and do not depend on anyone or anything in finding the Truth.
          But the doorway to it is Sincerity, Honesty, Integrity, Authenticity.

          The TRUTH cannot be imposed, as it happens with a BELIEF.

          Only an honest, sincere mind can know the TRUTH. There is such thing, when honesty restores Innocence i.e. "Unless you are like one of these children you shall not enter the kingdom of my Father". The Truth is not decided, the truth is REVEALED to the mind that is sincere and not warped by lies. The TRUTH is self evident, it does never seek to be justified or excused. Only assumptions, speculative guesses that we hold onto and call BELIEFS need to justified.

          Words can never substitute the TRUTH. They can point in the direction of it, but the TRUTH is revealed to a mind that is STILL. The Moon can reflect clearly in the still waters, but in the unsettled waters, the moon appears warped. So with the TRUTH.
          And what warps the mind is fear, thinking, division in the psyche.

          Try it out.
          “Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God” (Matthew 5:8)
      • Aug 18 2013: i have tried and it is not for me. Let us agree to disagree.
      • thumb
        Aug 18 2013: Plain agreement John!
        The TRUTH from an expression standpoint, should be the honest and clear expression of our own thoughts or ideas, without negative intentions in them.
        FEAR is used to repress the Free Expression of those ideas, as the TRUTH many times challenges obscure forces or personal egotistic interests.
        When I consider Freedom of Expression being diminished, is because in most systems the Law is used to forbid certain concepts to be told or communicated. Other times, is the supposed "Power of Science" which makes strong efforts to restrict ideas which clash or friction with orthodox and accepted paradigms.
        In many countries, where Big Pharma is powerful, its efforts have achieved the creation of restrictive laws against practitioners of alternative medicine, including the creation of severe penalties for them. Not only the right to express alternative views on the illness and healing are being curtailed, but the individual rights to choose those alternatives is suppressed by the same means. You cannot make a choice when you don't know about alternatives.
        It is said "The road to hell is paved with good intentions"...
        Some good folks, fervent believers in the indisputably science dogmas, are very resistant and belligerent when confronted with contradictory concepts, labeling them as "pseudo-scientific" because they are supposedly using the "language of science".
        So it seems freedom to use the "language of science" is also restricted to selected groups and elites! By the same it would be justifiable Lawyers would restrict "Legal Language" to law practitioners; mathematics only for mathematicians, and chemistry jargon just for chemists!

        It is almost happening! Mainly in highly developed countries and "in the name of Society and its interests"!

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.