Posted on 09/25/2012 6:04:44 PM PDT by Free ThinkerNY
NEW YORK (AP) -- Egyptian President Mohammed Morsi said freedom of expression must be used responsibly in a speech Tuesday to the Clinton Global Initiative in New York that hinted at looming tensions in the newly-democratic nation.
Morsi, a key figure of Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood, repeated several times that he was the "first, democratically elected, civilian president of Egypt" and earned applause by asking his audience to "see a new Egypt."
(Excerpt) Read more at hosted.ap.org ...
OK, as long as I’m the one who gets to decide what is responsible.
Who will define “responsible?”
Morsi can take his idea of prior restraint and shove it up (where the sun don’t shine). Free speech means offensive ideas are free to be presented.
Who the hells what he wants?
When he stops the whole sale murdering of Jews and Christians by islamic thugs, he might have more credibility.
Moraine can flat out kiss my American ass.
‘scuse me while I tell this guy to fu*k off.
Damn spell check. Morsi.
Death to all jihadis! Allahu Akbar!
All right, I am happy to be responsible. Who in their right mind would voluntarily adopt Islam? And who wants to associate with the few people who would do such a thing? Not me.
If anyone attempts to abridge our freedom of speech, that person is violating one of our most fundamental God-given human rights along with one of our most fundamental human rights. Such an attempt to control free people falls into the category "Casus belli" - a cause or justification for war. I don't think even Obama would go that far, not until after the election when he promises to have more flexibility.
I thought you meant Moron....
What a farce. Someone who expresses an opinion is now responsible for the actions of someone who hears the opinion?
Well, now if some looney American goes off on them b/c they said, I don’t know, maybe “Islam”, it will be the fault of the person who said “Islam” that the looney American killed several, dozens, hundreds, or even thousands of innocents?
Whatever. Barbarians in thinking and actions they are. Dogs, really. No, pigs. Yeah pigs. And shoe soles too.
pffffft
Oops, I meant to say: If anyone attempts to abridge our freedom of speech, that person is violating one of our most fundamental God-given human rights along with one of our most fundamental legal rights. Such an attempt to control free people falls into the category “Casus belli” - a cause or justification for war. I don’t think even Obama would go that far, not until after the election when he promises to have more flexibility.
Our freedoms are not up for negotiation.
Still, why does it feel like that is exactly what is going on?
It feels like “we” are trying to compromise with people who give to craps about our way of life?
Ok. If you call for the death of the jews, we get to blow you up
Ok. If you call for the death of the jews, we get to blow you up
Simon says; Morsi wants.
I truly hate the often heard assertions that rights come with responsibilities. While in a very limited sense it’s true, mostly it is not. Rights are absolute, and not conditional.
My freedom of speech is not ever to be tempered because some lunatic will go into a berserk rage and murder people.
My only responsibility is to say just what i please. No “responsibilities” were written into the 1st amendment.
This concept is the main frontal attack of those who want to diminish my rights.
Even the vaunted “fire in a crowded theater” everyone solomly invokes was a case where the Wilson administration wanted to imprison people for handing out handbills opposing the draft. So even their most famous example is crap.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.