Freedom to be wrong

Freedom of speech is about the freedom to be wrong. It is okay to be wrong, to not know everything, to work through things in your head, that leads to growth. I don't think we ever get anything perfectly right. We tend to focus on the aspects of any issue that we think impact us. I have constantly stated that this blog is an exploration, not an answer, not even for me.

Two articles on freedom of speech. The first is about a professor who was fired for saying that homosexuality is a sin. He was teaching a class on what Catholicism is. How can he teach the class if he cannot say what the Catholic churches position on homosexuality is?

The second is about what people should be allowed to say on the internet. It is half joking and more of a complaint.

On a unrelated note. The things I have posted on regarding quantum physics and spirituality is being discussed more and more in the mainstream media. Basically they are using quantum physics to push a gnostic philosophy. A push against diversity of thought in order to achieve a blending of things. Another article on science and reality.

The fact that I frequently post on things a day or two before others write about it has nothing to do with tapping into a universal consciousness. I simply read a lot and can see what the reactions will be. Other people read the same articles and it takes a day or two for them to publish, my blog can post immediately with no spell check or editor to slow it down.

If you the articles linked above on quantum physics and spirituality, look at the dates. This is a developing discussion that was begun when a quantum physicist began discussing how gravity made no sense and that reality was merely perception. The question of to what extent we will be allowed to post on things without getting approval and recognition from the government remains to be seen.

The attacks by governments all around the world on freedom of speech and thought is terrifying. The discussion is being played out as the fight between a complete loss of privacy (publish everything including porn with even children having unrestricted access) to "legitimate" control over what is published. The discussion is being pushed so that you accept something in between; but, there is no in between if you give government or others control over free speech it is not free speech.

If someone commits a crime using the internet, such as publishing pictures of child porn, arrest them for the action and take down the site. The issue is one of pre-determining what can be published. Libel laws are questionable. It brings up questions of your right to be wrong. Should I be allowed to say that I think all politicians are crooks without being able to prove it? Kathy Griffin recently called one politicians daughters prostitutes, she was joking and they appear to be accomplished young ladies; but, should she be allowed to joke about such things?

Let us say that you can publish what you want, at what point should others be allowed to sue you? Will people end up having to word things in crafty ways to get around the laws? Would Kathy Griffin be allowed to ask whether or not the girls had ever had sex for money rather than saying they had?