Thread replies: 5
Thread images: 2
Thread images: 2
File: indifferent-pepe-large.png (672KB, 906x799px) Image search:
[Google]
672KB, 906x799px
At what point does a culture deem it necessary to limit/regulate free speech?
I know that some cultures, like China or Russia, have limited free speech in their areas not only to prevent social upheavals, but in response said upheavals. And not just upheavals against those in power, but in times where certain sides kept conflicting with each other to boiling points, that resulted in fighting and chaos. You can start to see that after a number of times, a culture feels the need to limit freedom of expression in order to keep people from tearing each other apart.
>>
>>3296772
It's almost like different cultures have different takes on the matter.
>>
When to do otherwise would likely result in civil war
>>
File: indifferent-pepe-large.png (669KB, 906x799px) Image search:
[Google]
669KB, 906x799px
>>3296785
Indeed, but every culture has at least some things in common ("huh?" exists in all language and means the same exact thing), and can shed light on how other cultures might react to being put under similar circumstances.
>>
>If nothing in life is worth dying for, when did this begin -- just in the face of this enemy? Or should Moses have told the children of Israel to live in slavery under the pharaohs? Should Christ have refused the cross? Should the patriots at Concord Bridge have thrown down their guns and refused to fire the shot heard 'round the world? The martyrs of history were not fools, and our honored dead who gave their lives to stop the advance of the Nazis didn't die in vain.
Thread posts: 5
Thread images: 2
Thread images: 2