addressalign-toparrow-leftarrow-rightbackbellblockcalendarcameraccwcheckchevron-downchevron-leftchevron-rightchevron-small-downchevron-small-leftchevron-small-rightchevron-small-upchevron-upcircle-with-checkcircle-with-crosscircle-with-pluscrossdots-three-verticaleditemptyheartexporteye-with-lineeyefacebookfolderfullheartglobegmailgooglegroupsimageimagesinstagramlinklocation-pinm-swarmSearchmailmessagesminusmoremuplabelShape 3 + Rectangle 1outlookpersonStartprice-ribbonImported LayersImported LayersImported Layersshieldstartickettrashtriangle-downtriangle-uptwitteruseryahoo

Free speech in a democracy should have no legal limits.

We shall see whether the freedom we have in our group to speak is safe!

Join or login to comment.

  • yyt

    Random thought for topic: why do we work?

    August 3, 2013

    • Rizwan

      http://www.partiallye...­ Another philosophy blog that is heavily discussing the philosophical aspects of "work"

      August 22, 2013

    • Murali

      When you are facing legal trouble, you won't think that a lawyer is a bullshit job. When you want someone to manage your money, you will won't think that financial managers are bullshit jobs. In fact if you depend on a corporation for anything you want somebody with his eye on the tiller. CEO is also not a bullshit job. Whether or not they are paid in proportion to the value they contribute is a separate matter. But in a functioning market if someone is being paid to do something, someone must value his work enough to pay him/her to do it. Do you know where you are likely to find bullshit jobs? Government workers. If you stop being useful to someone in the market, usually they stop employing you. That is not necessarily the case once politics and elections come into the picture.

      August 22, 2013

  • Alo

    Dear members, I've just set up a webblog recently to gather a community of like minded people interested in philosophy, do check it out at www.musesg.com Do write in if you would like to post any articles yourself.

    August 21, 2013

  • yyt

    Or another one: "When does a convenience becomes a need?"

    August 10, 2013

  • Jairus

    LOL, i really like that topic "why do we work?"

    1 · August 5, 2013

  • Jennifer Chua Poh N.

    I enjoyed it. Though at times I find it a little hard to follow.

    August 3, 2013

  • Joe G.

    ... To see that ppl could shake on it at the end :)

    August 3, 2013

  • Joe G.

    Thanks. I'm the new guy in blue. It was fun hearing all those viewpoints, some more aggressively put forth than others. But it's nice to see that ...

    August 3, 2013

  • Alo

    Sorry something cropped up last min.

    August 3, 2013

  • Murali

    Sorry, have thesis to complete

    August 2, 2013

  • Vinay Kumar R.

    Sorry, something even more important than free speech - finding my truth - has come up. You guys fire away.
    Cheers, Vinay

    July 31, 2013

  • Alo

    I would like to add a further primer. What I refer to is those speech of the most extreme kind, meant to stir the passions and influence others. Also, I would like to add on an additional complication: these speeches take place in places of religious diversity where religion and cultures like side by side, say in Singapore, or in parts of India where Islam and Hinduism are both present in the North-western cities.

    July 29, 2013

  • Jennifer Chua Poh N.

    Looking forward to attending this one. Hopefully, will be more active in participation. The last one "What is Truth" was a marathon lasting 3 and a half hrs, but I enjoyed it.

    July 29, 2013

  • Raymond H.

    this is an interesting topic to discuss in depth.
    especially countries in south asia.
    govt in individual countries claim they have the jurisdiction to interpret freedom of speech, slander, inciting social instability, yet at the same time, ALL these countries want to claim to be a democratic (perhaps pseudo democratic) society
    to bring about true essence of democratic change in these countries, perhaps, we must institutionalise an international organisation with a team of multinational armies (to enforce in extreme case), and with influence over IMF, the World Bank, and the United Nation, such that this organization will define the minimal standards for a democratic society, including what is acceptable level of freedom of speech for all countries.

    July 29, 2013

  • Murali

    Add further food for thought: Whether racist speech really requires heavy handed state action? The freedom to say only the correct kinds of things is not much of a freedom

    July 29, 2013

  • Alo

    I would like to add on some dilemmas that come with this question, that is, the inciting of racist, discriminatory speech and those of hatred in the public sphere as the core problem in this issue.

    July 29, 2013

  • kit

    Probably can't join you guys, but this is something to get you started. US 1st amendment is widely misunderstood. It prohibits the federal government from regulating speech, but not the states. Also gives examples where the states have a legitimate reason to limit speech. http://www.krusch.com/real/under.html

    July 29, 2013

  • yyt

    May be we can adopt a more philosophical angle since this is a philosophy group

    July 28, 2013

People in this
Meetup are also in:

Sign up

Meetup members, Log in

By clicking "Sign up" or "Sign up using Facebook", you confirm that you accept our Terms of Service & Privacy Policy