freedom isn't something you can give another person, unless you mean quite literally unhandcuffing someone or letting someone out of captivity in your basement. a good deal of freedom is internal.
g
I believe a number of systems of government throughout the majority of history would strongly disagree.
A free country is a pretty new idea.
@LenHazell53 yeah maybe we'll pick up on it some day. but you know, it doesn't have to be a basement....
g
This was a quote my father used to use a lot especially when drunk and pretending he had been old enough to be able to have fought in the last war, "For our generations freedom"
There is a difference between liberty and license. For example, you do not have the freedom to yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater.
I always find that example a bit silly.
One may yell anything anywhere if no negative intent is involved.
I have been in crowded cinema's watching "Wrath of Khan" when dozens of people of joined in with Kirk, yelling "Fire!" as the Enterprise attacks.
This day and age a cry of fire, not accompanied by an alarm going off will probably only result in people shouting STFU in response.
Personally I use Incitement to crime or riot as the example of a limit on free speech since by necessity inferred negative intent is can be implied.
@LenHazell53
Well, the example, which BTW pre-dates fire alarms, is meant to imply a negative intent to incite panic and the resultant consequences, not shouting a homophone while participating in a Trek movie. But, what about death threats? The point being that virtually all societies and their laws recognize a difference between liberty and license, or freedom and the abuse of freedom.
@Heraclitus thanks for that, and I did mention exceptions such as Incitement to crime or riot