- + Barry Skaw joined Debatewise
- + Maciej Pielachowski joined Debatewise
- + Hülya joined Debatewise
- + Debate76ster joined Debatewise
- + Nirmal Kumar joined Debatewise
- + Deonvoff joined Debatewise
- + Timothy Orzeszek joined Debatewise
- + Werbehoguehob joined Debatewise
- + Barry Nism joined Global Youth Panel
- + Seiliacek Kese897 joined Global Youth Panel
- + Moogmaclan I joined Debatewise
- + Chaci joined Debatewise
- + Locksgydff joined Debatewise
- + Ankpsin joined Debatewise
- + Penf Dumn joined Debatewise
- + Poldimpailm joined Debatewise
- + Penf Defs joined Debatewise
- + Arresudgert joined Debatewise
- + Scoolfeds joined Debatewise
- + Seng9153 joined Debatewise
- + Sararozmus joined Debatewise
- + Keerthana.Bora joined Debatewise
- + Yoskha D. Adrianto joined Debatewise
- + Seniallealm joined Debatewise
- + Benjamin Barnard joined Debatewise
- + Mangopop0033 joined Debatewise
- + Mantcece Sed603 joined Debatewise
- + Eurorcevete joined Debatewise
- + Urbaday joined Debatewise
- + Steven Allyn Taylor joined Debatewise
PEOPLE SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO FREELY EXPRESS THEIR OPINIONS OVER INDIVIDUALS NO MATTER HOW CONTROVERSIAL THEIR OPINIONS MAY BE
The death of Lebanese cleric Grand Ayatollah Fadalallah has been marked in the west by the disciplining of two people in senior jobs for making favourable remarks about him. One of whom Octavia Nasr was fired from her job as a senior Middle East editor for a tweet she made about him. But was this a fair reaction or a move towards public self censorship by CNN? And more importantly should people be allowed to express favourable or opinions hostile to a person no matter how controversial that person is or that opinion about the person may be ?
People should be allowed to freely express their opinions over individuals no matter how controversial their opinions may be
Yes, because... When Obama can relieve mcchrystal of his duties for making casual somewhat offensive essentially humorous remarks
Relieving a man of his position in the military(a very strict and ordered institution as it stands) with a substantial payoff is far more tolerable than sacking two reporters who spoke/spake well of a dead cleric.
As long as these reporters had done their research and expressed informed objective(hardly the highlight of C.N.N presently. Even Fox feels more fair and balanced in the latest regard) views there was no reason to axe them.If the news is censored what far reaching forum of free speech are we left with? Debatewise.
And Obama is the poster boy for Freedom of Speech. Given that he is the President of The United States of America the country whose very foundation lies in Voltaire`s principles; in the first amendment.
The first amendment has been Suspended according to CNN reporter/correspondent A. Cooper[1]. However he was only talking about rights given to B.P to impose restrictions/limits on coverage of the worst oil spill in (American) history.
There is also the patriot act introduced in the Bush era taking away American freedoms to write/say whatever they want in emails and on the phone.
The C.I.A and F.B.I have been guilty of many political murders and intrusions releasing files years later. Celebrities suffering under the acts of these intelligence agencies include: Jean Seberg, Tesla(Alternating current; responsible for lighting up the world) and Martin Luther King.
Freedom of speech is a ruse long exposed. The sentiment is dear but practically speaking there is no longer any room for it in the country that sold it to the world.
Point 1. When Obama can relieve mcchrystal of his duties for making casual somewhat offensive essentially humorous remarks
And Obama is the poster boy for Freedom of Speech. Given that he is the President of The United States of America the country whose very foundation lies in Voltaire`s principles; in the first amendment.
The first amendment has been Suspended according to CNN reporter/correspondent A. Cooper[1]. However he was only talking about rights given to B.P to impose restrictions/limits on coverage of the worst oil spill in (American) history.
Relieving a man of his position in the military(a very strict and ordered institution as it stands) with a substantial payoff is far more tolerable than sacking two reporters who spoke/spake well of a dead cleric.As long as these reporters had done their research and expressed informed objective(hardly the highlight of C.N.N presently. Even Fox feels more fair and balanced in the latest regard) views there was no reason to axe them.
If the news is censored what far reaching forum of free speech are we left with? Debatewise.