Weekly Featured Contents
Week 10:- Edition 03:-
Freedom Of Speech
Src
This image was taken from this website(https://pixabay.com/)
Over the years, the idea of freedom of speech has seemed to evolve. While people are free to speak their minds, they are also restricted to the kind of things they can say. What are your thoughts on this? Especially how it affects us presently?
Freedom of Speech We need to know beforehand whether I have the right to express the sentence I am expressing and whether it can hurt anyone's feelings. Good
There is no freedom of speech in our country at present because we know that many martyrs have lost their lives for the language movement of 952 in our country to recognize Bengali as the state language. There are a lot of dilemmas to talk about
I can't express my own opinion which seems to me to be true I can't say how my freedom of speech is in that country nowadays if you want to express your freedom of speech on social media then you will be brought under law under information technology law It has become so harsh in Bangladesh at present
After the Shirley Abdo incident, Salman Rushdie named the brigade after hearing the reaction of a section of the Left (I am using the word not in a partisan way, but in an ideological way). In Bengali we can say 'but'. Moksham naming. The Shirley Ebdo incident may have faded in our memory. But all the time in such cases, where a powerless or oppressed person or group is doing or claiming something that would seem seemingly unjust, there is a lot of ‘but’ in one kind of response. For example, killing people in this way is not entirely justifiable, but it is not possible to say or do whatever one pleases for the sake of freedom of speech, especially if the target of his attack or satire is a socially or economically weaker group. When he was told this, what did he need to do?
Absolutely not to blow up the objections. But since the leftists are morally powerless and sympathetic to the oppressed class, the question may arise, is their reaction consistent with their original position? Or is it possible that such an argument could lead to a slippery slope, so that in the end only the powerless and oppressed class of people could suffer the most?
I am an independent citizen of an independent country I have the right to freedom of language and language in my country but I cannot express my own freedom of speech in that language It is my sorrow because in my own eyes the things that seem so much worse
It may be political but it may be public but we cannot express those words
Some people will say that it is not wise to be offended by any word. Freedom of speech is important only because of freedom. As with any belief-based position, this position does not argue. But instead of such a belief-based position, like the other five issues, here too we can judge it in terms of results. That is, what is the consequence of acknowledging the freedom of speech of all, and what is the consequence of allowing the state to curtail that freedom? Where do we stand when we think of the ‘evil’ of independent speech in the language of economics as an externality or an exaggeration? When the polluted water of my factory is mixed in the river water, it has a bad effect on the common people. Suppose you are offended by my independent speech, it is also an exaggeration of my words. I mean, it's my own pleasure to say that, but in that cycle your badness is increasing. The state also has the right to control the process in which there is excess, at least there is no way to object if any state thinks so. Therefore, the state can declare, from today, not a single word should be said.
I think everyone should have freedom of speech. It is very important for everyone to express their minds, language or attitude.
Until today, everyone will be fine, stay healthy, keep praying for me, thank you very much
Thanks for visiting my blog
