RE: Freedom of Speech
Agreed.
What this post addresses underneath is the question, "Is all speech freeing?"
I agree that people are allowed to express what they think and feel. The problem that arises is when one is speaking evil speech (angry, hateful, etc.) without considering who, where, and when. Not all people are equipped with the tools to handle such poison (fire) in a way that they can deal with it in a constructive way.
The easiest emotion to spread is anger. Giving a person who speaks evil speech a platform in front of millions of people is the easiest way to destroy any constructive building happening.
I, myself, have fallen prey to my own ranting. I can say the consequences of my actions have not been good overall. It is important that we speak to people who can help us deal with our own evil speech in a constructive way, even though the process is exceedingly more uncomfortable than the "quick-fix." It is important to speak to those who are equipped with the tools and avoid unloading on those who will take my evil speech and spread it to others. - " To avoid letting a fire get out of hand, don't light a fire in a dry forest without first clearing your surrounding area to make sure it is safe." - Me 8-)
@marriannewest - This post and comment speak to what you asked a while back. The question you asked there, I think, was basically, "How to tell the difference?" If we cannot see what the difference is between evil speech and speech based in love, which may have anger and all other types of negative emotions in it, then we have a lot of work to do in order to differentiate between the two.
I know what you mean. It can be seen in any scenario. A person with thousands of followers on Twitter can do a lot of damage to another person, through a hate speech. I think one of the best things we can do is go to the basics: "the rhetoric" of Aristotle.
I can not say when something is, or is not, freedom of expression.
But from my experience, I know that freedom of expression is to say bad things that are the truth, things, when only sweet lies are said in the media. This is what happens in countries under totalitarian dictatorships.
Aristotle was only allowed to teach to a certain level and not beyond that, which was on either/or perspective (Western). He went into ancient Afrika to learn their mystery traditions. They had a holistic way of looking at things, a both/and perspective (Eastern).
I get this information from "Stolen Legacy" by George G. M. James (of which you can find online for free if you wish.)