============================
Okay, since none of you find it easy to respond, I'll dumb this down for you. (In the hopes of explaining better what I believe to be true.)
If you subscribe to the theory I hold re; the value of free speech, the right of free speech for the individual is two-fold. That is to say, in reviewing the case against Styne, Neil McDonald produced an impartial view that freedom of speech in Canada should be placed into a less broader context. However, does Styne not interfere with the subject that targets islam in a pro-US stance, that targets minorities as result of what the dialogue insinuates. It's a fair question to ask; that reveals how rights of the indiviudal as in freedom of speech are meant to be preserved.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote from: Hap on Today at 05:25 AM
In Canada, the right to free speech is not absolute. It is balanced against other rights,in this case the right of identifiable minorities to not be subjected to hatred. I think we are too quick to restrict free speech in this country, and this case is an example of how wide the hate-speech net is cast. I also think Steyn is an idiot.
The bottom line, however, is that freedom of speech in Canada and the US boils down to economics. The corporate news media will fight to the death against government censorship, but they'll drop a writer or broadcaster like a hot potato when advertisers are offended.
============================
my response:
Yes, this acts as a good response. However, when is it acceptable when ANY form of unilateral means are deemed necessary to alienate others as if to commit suicide. Let me explain what this means: in terms of Steyn's use of freedom of speech Steyn is acting in a manner that he must feel what represents (in this case a group. . . ) infringing upon his natural right as an individual to express what he must also feel is a breech of trust from where he exists as a person of identifiable means. Does this not equal the fact we are justifying an end if we are preserving freedom of speech for all people? I say the answer is yes. It does not depend on the individual, in this case Steyn, who is using his freedom of speech in a manner of speaking, "Look at me, I'm commiting a false suicide, because I Feel threatened by a certain group against me - my personal beliefs - are in jeopardy. . . this is ME being threatened." Does Steyn not constitute as free speech. On those terms I must abide to the RIGHT as an individual to express myself, but not as Steyn has in my view. I cannot make it any simpler than that who says, "I am commiting a suicide, my freedom of speech acts on it." = Steyn. However, our RIGHTS as individuals (regardless of minority status) do not depend on the use of a false vicitim such as is Steyn bemusing us. It is the law of diminishing returns. . .
========================
The movie as it is could've been a far better movie without (in this case affleck. . . ) who's a b-list movie actor. The shot from the scene is fairly dramatic, whatever the (director) wasn't getting through to (affleck) it was a misdemeanor on afflecks dispersal of the scene. What broke affleck's bad habits must have caught the dir. attention, because by the 4'th take the entire film crew was earily quite on set, when I looked in the back from where you see me on screen, in between takes the film's crew which are usually aspiring actors but don't have the talent are all looking in my direction. By the time the dir. thought about accounting for affleck's distaste, he used the takes that caused it.
======================
^Does this mean none of you has seen the movie? The clip that i am in is an over the shoulder shot of Affleck. He was not acting, when you see me, affleck is looking straight at me and not in character. . . the director was having a field day with affleck's antics which is not even the half of it. Affleck blew up at the director, telling him to "Stop telling me what to do." -
=====================
No comments:
Post a Comment