Freedom of Speech

What is freedom of speech? Why do we have it? And what is so wrong about it? These are only some of the questions we face when we discuss this topic. However, one thing remains clear. Freedom of Speech is our right.

But what is our right? Our rights to a freedom of speech? In this case, rights can be defined as ‘a moral or legal claim to have or get something or to behave in a particular way’ (Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary of Current English). That is the definition of rights, so let us break it down to key words. If we do so, we get “moral or legal claim”, “to have or get”, “in a particular way”. The part that says “to have or get”, and the part that says “in a particular way” is just as simple as it is. But in the part that says “moral or legal claim”, we must focus on the word claim. The definition of claim is “to say something is true although it has not been proven and other people may not believe it”.

By that definition, a new and serious problem arises. If rights are claims, are rights real? Is it only a state of mind in which we believe is real? With this question in mind, let us move on.

Freedom of speech is a right that we claim to be able to express ourselves and to pass on information, regardless of how dangerous or inappropriate it might be. And there lies the problem. With the right to say what is in our minds, securities and secrets will be revealed. Information that must be kept secret in order to preserve or protect a society is information that is dangerous and can only mean disaster. That is why censorships are created. It is a means to preserve our further rights to privacy, and is a way to keep our nation and society safe from leaking information to those who might exploit that information, to present a threat to the safety of a nation.

After all, rights are just claims, legal claims. It cannot be proven that it is true. Therefore, freedom of speech is as strong and real as the dragons in fairy tales. They are the most powerful tool, but they are as unreal as they are powerful.

“For accusations are as beneficial to Republics as calumnies are harmful”, Niccolo Machiavelli (Discourses, Chapter VIII).

They, the rights, were created to make balance for the people, to satisfy the population’s need to ‘excessive’ knowledge. All of which, can be easily forgotten if danger, or more reasonably, fear comes closer. That is when rights like freedom of speech can be overlooked, or even stepped on by things like censorships. It is all in the name of security and safety, all in which leads to our survival.

Machiavelli continued from the previous statement, ‘and on the other hand there is this difference, that calumnies do not need witnesses nor any other particular confrontation to prove them so that anyone can be calumniated by anyone else, but cannot now be accused, as the accuser has need of positive proof and circumstances that would show the truth of the accusation.’(Discourses, Chapter VIII)

Thus is the danger of Freedom of Speech. False information can be presented in the form of this right. Those who release these information may themselves, not know the truth. However, information can be spread fast, and even faster today with the rise of modern technologies. Therefore, as stated previously, censorships were created to prevent these sorts of things from happening in the name of society’s safety. If such censorships are not maintained, the people of the nations are the first to change.

‘for calumnies irritate but do not castigate citizens, and those who have been irritated think of strengthening themselves, easily hating more than fearing the things that are said against them.’ Niccolo Machiavelli (Discourses, Chapter VIII)

The result of Freedom of Speech can create a change in society, in which the people would know too much about reality that they begin to criticize one another, eventually leading to distrust and insecurity within the society. Slowly, the people in the society drift apart and the society itself would cease to exist. With freedom of speech comes the dark truth that people love to criticize others, and that they are unwelcoming other’s criticisms. Since freedom of speech guarantees the rights to speak freely of one’s mind, only their obligations and respect towards what others think and believe prohibit them from saying what is truly in their minds.

Freedom of speech will destroy a governing body, if it is allowed 100%. The only way to preserve a nation or a society, there must be a body of people, an organization that is higher in hierarchy than that of the normal population, to quietly censor out the freedom to speak. This body of organization can be governments, kings, lords, warlords, or even tribal chiefs. Control must be maintained, because people cannot take care of people. In reality, it is persons that take care of people.

‘he who defends the Spartan and Venetian arrangement, says that those who placed that guardianship[of liberty] in the hands of the Powerful [Nobles], made two good points: The one, that they satisfy more the ambitions of those who playing a greater part in the Republic, [and] having this club in their hands, have more reason to be content; the other, that they take away a kind of authority from the restless spirit of the People which is the cause of infinite discussions and troubles in a Republic, and apt to bring the Nobility to some [act of] desperation which in times may result in some bad effects.’ Niccolo Machiavelli (Discourses Chapter V)

People cannot run their own society and preserve nation effectively. There will be an unending problem. People are too diverse in their minds that not all will come to the same conclusions. And if each and every one of those people were to speak what is in their minds, it will further cause conflicts and cause a society or a nation to divide amongst themselves. For a nation to survive and to be preserved, it is clear that not everyone must have a saying. Not everyone must be heard, in order for a nation to remain as one. Not everyone must be able to govern and run a nation. Only persons, few individuals, must be selected in order for a nation to survive.

If freedom of speech is given to the people completely, a nation and society, as stated previously, will not survive. Society will tear itself apart and soon, there will be no remaining body of government. Each people will be truly free, and that there will be no laws at all to bind and limit the freedom of people. And since people are foolish and brute, a group of people with no governing body will be nothing more than a few assemblies.

‘because that people is nothing else other than a brute animal, which (although by nature ferocious and wild) has always been brought up in prison and servitude, [and] which later being left by chance free in a field, [and] not being accustomed to [obtain] food or not knowing where to find shelter for refuge, becomes prey to the first one who seeks to enchain it again.’ Niccolo Machiavelli (Discourses Chapter XVII)

Sooner or later, once society is no more and people are truly free, there will be, again, persons, certain individuals, who will lead and bind the people together and for a society or nation once more. And when that happens, rules and laws will be set up again. And if this new society is to survive, it too must control and limit the freedoms of the people, such as the freedom of speech, and that only persons, not the people, hold the liberty and the true power to a nation, state, or society.

However, to take away the freedom of speech is also a horrid decision. Without freedom of speech, a nation and society can be destroyed, but instead by corruption and the hunger for power. Once a nation is strong and has stopped growing, its institutions old and maintaining, it will be those who are powerful who will run the nation, and it is those very same persons that will create the laws of the nation. Therefore, it is common sense that if that person is bad or corrupt, the entire nation and its system to uphold liberty will be corrupt. The people, if prohibited to speak their mind, or out of fear of prosecution remain silent and fearful of the powerful, will have no power, and can only watch as a nation crumbles from its core of government and rot from the very persons that run the nation or state.

It must be the people’s responsibility and duty to keep watch and, if necessary, rise up and prevent those powerful persons from abusing their power and further consuming power for themselves. That is when the sharp blade of Rights comes. In most cases, rights of various freedoms, most importantly freedom of speech may prove to be disturbances for maintaining and preserving a nation, but if a nation has become old, corrupt, or under control of a bad leader, the people must speak what is in their minds about the conditions. It is poison to the governing body or organization, but it is also what keeps the power to the people. With the people having power to cause riots, rebellions, and revolutions from just the spur of a person’s words (whether it be true or not), the governing body will have to fear its people. If the population is denied of their rights and freedom, happiness will disappear, and soon the entire nation will be like the Chinese nation under the Mongolian rule. They will, in a single night, overthrow their Mongol masters and will try to govern for themselves.

If the governing body has fear of its people, it will do whatever it can to keep the people happy and content. Though that might be censorships and control of the freedom of speech, it can only do so much. It is important for a nation to follow those advises or public outcries. Creating new institutions make new laws, and changing leaders will help keep a nation stable and remove corruption or control it.

‘This institution [Rome and her governing body] was good when the Citizens were good, for it was always well that anyone who intended some good for the public was able to propose it, and it was well that everyone could speak his thoughts on it, so that the people, having listened to all sides, could then select the best. But when the Citizens had become bad such institutions became the worst, for only the powerful proposed laws, [and] not for the common liberty, but for their own power, and everyone for fear of them was not able to speak against them: so that the people came to be deceived or forced into deciding their own ruin.’ Niccolo Machiavelli (Discourses Chapter XVIII)

The people must speak in order to maintain a nation as well. If the people are too afraid, those persons who run the country will have no one to fear, and will be left untouched to seek further power and do as those persons will.

Freedom of speech can bring about the destruction of a nation, or preserve it. A balance is required, which one can say it is hard to estimate or even know what the true balance is. However, it can be said that the people’s constant cry for freedom and the governing body’s fear of the people’s power will bring about an unending shift of powers and changing. This might be the answer of how to best preserve a nation and the true place for freedom of speech.

‘It was to the charlatan’s advantage that the individuals predisposed to credulity should multiply, that the groups of his adherents should enlarge to mass proportions, guaranteeing an ever greater scope for his triumphs.’ The Power of Charlatan, Grete De Francesco, 1939.

If the people are to cry for freedom, while the governing body hears it and at the same time controls the amounts of freedom the people can have, there will be balance of power. There will be gains and losses of power on both sides on a constant level, and there will be no settling of powers. If the powers are truly settled, either to the favor of the people or the governing body and the persons who run it, a nation or state dies. It is, as stated previously, because if a nation is tilted towards the government, it will die of corruption or by the hands of unsatisfied rebels. If a nation is tilted towards the people, their very own nature tears the nation apart.

Now we bring back that question that was left unanswered in the beginning. Are rights just in our minds and not real? The answer is yes. Rights are not real. It is actually a tool for the people and the governing body. The people cry for rights to satisfy their needs, while the government provides the rights of freedom while limiting it, with or without the people’s knowledge. In truth, rights and freedoms does not exist within a society where there is a leader of a nation or a leading body or organization of a nation. Rights and freedoms are just the people’s imagination, what they think would make the world a better place. They are just claims to pacify their tempers. The governing body, knowing full well that without satisfying the nation, the people is the most dangerous weapon ever. Nothing can stop the people, what they want, and what they need. Therefore, the governing body provides those claims that the population demands. But people will never be satisfied, and will fill itself to death if given too many rights and freedoms, becoming too arrogant and hateful to bind together as a nation. Therefore, governing bodies control and contain the rights and freedoms that they created and have given to the population. It may be know to the people, or as secret and quiet as it can be, but the governing body must do so in order to maintain and control the population from becoming too privileged or too free. It is human nature to be, when free, wild and brute, without any capabilities to form a large and complex society.

It should also be noted that by not giving many of the freedoms completely, like freedom of speech, the people hungers for more, and will be dependant on the governing body to provide them with it.

‘Thus a wise prince will think of ways to keep his citizens of every sort and under every circumstance dependent on the state and on him; and then they will always be trustworthy.’ Niccolo Machiavelli, 1469-1527.

‘Men are so simple of mind, and so much dominated by their immediate needs, that a deceitful man will always find plenty who are ready to be deceived.’ Niccolo Machiavelli, 1469-1527.

In conclusion, the freedom of speech is nothing more than a made up tool for the people to demand more power and freedom to the people themselves, and a tool used by and created by the governing body to satisfy the population and maintain a nation from corruption and crumbling down. It is a necessary illusion that keeps our nation intact and is required for a nation to have and control it. Without control, the society, nation, or state will crumble as well.

Sources:

Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary, 7^th edition

Chief Editor Sally Wehmeier, Oxford University Press, Published 2005

The Concise 48 Laws of Power

Robert Greene, Profile Books Ltd, Published 2002

http://www.epistemelinks.com/Main/TextName.aspx?PhilCode=Mach

http://etext.library.adelaide.edu.au/m/machiavelli/niccolo/m149d/

WARNING : TENTH BLOG

Version 2 of the Soldier Model

This is the second version of the soldier model I made in the Cinema 4d program. This model has a more bigger armor and a bigger backpack. It is also more 'heavy infantry' looking. I purposely made this model to be something like a jetpack soldier, so he has something that might look like a jet pack on his back. He also has more of a thicker armor, with more extra blocks on his foot and shoulder. The helmet also underwent some changes. It is more and more like the Master Chief's helmet from the game Halo. In fact, if you color him green...

Now they really have a look that is the same with the Halo game. But I really did not want to make a copy of the Master Chief and his armor. All i wanted to get the same concept, but not to copy it. That would be a disgrace and a really bad idea. All I wanted to do is to make a model that is completely my own and is good enough for the eye. That is why I colored my model BLACK instead of GREEN. I also tried to make it as much like my own as possible. I do not wish to have copyright lawyers breathing down my back.

With the color black for this model, it is safe to say that the idea is mine and that it does not look too much like the ones from Halo. Anyway, that is the new model I made today at my free time. I also made a little change to the chest armor of the old soldier model, since one of my friends said it was too square and it did not look too well. the result was:
Now the chest armor is more like that of a human male chest. I also redid the texture property of the helmet glass/visor part. It is now more like a glass or plastic glass part than ever before, thanks to a friend's advice. Overall though, the textures need work, but would not be a problem if I were to minimize each of these soldier models and put them all together like this:
This is a bad picture with poor lighting I know, but it proves my point in that you dont see the flaws of each model and their not-so-good textures. Instead, it makes use of the number of models there and makes it harder to spot the flaws in each model. So far, I believe I have the models for the soldiers now. All i need is perhaps more gun models that are better and more variant, and even a vehicle for those soldiers. That would be the next step to my free time project of 3d animation (yes animation, they will move later on. WAAAY later on).

WARNING : NINTH BLOG

ON MY SPARE TIME

This is what i did on my spare time. It is done in cinema 4d and took around a full day's free time to make it. It looks sort of cool. Personally, i really like what I've done. I got the concept from the Master Chief or Spartan 117 from the game Halo. You can see the resemblence of the armor in the helmet part. This guy also has the same glass or face protection part, whatever you call it, that I actually tried to take or immitate from the Master Chief. But to make it not too much alike, I made sure the color was not the same, and I didnt make the helmet too similar. I actually crossed it between a motorcycle helmet and the Master Chief's.

As for the body armor, I really can not say much. I just did one thing, and the next. Soon, i was just trying to fill up the original stick figure inside and cover it up with anything to make it look like it was body armor. I don't know if you can see it in the first picture, but I actually made a crappy work on the chest part, but it still looks acceptable because i made the textures have bumps.

The gun is just a simple group of shapes and textures mixed together. It might seem way too large for the carrier, but I say it might look cool after all. But of course, there is the problem of a big gun being too bulky for actual use, but it still looks good enough, I think, for it to be there.

All in all, I say that it looks fine. I am quite satisfied with it.

This is the actual color of the model.
Its actually black. In this mode, there is only a little light that i put in. It makes the models look sort of nice as well. It shows the true color, and also gives some details on the textures.

But with some extra lighting, this is what they look like. It makes them a little more shiny and more rich in the details of the bumps in the textures, but thats only because of the shadow.
And that is what I did in my spare time.