If it were so true, I, and everyone else, would be able to say what we want, when we want, and to whom we want. Freedom of speech, in my opinion, lies closely with defamation of character.

Lies and truth:

If freedom of speech is practiced, how do we find the line between lies and truth? The sky is green. First of all, someone has the freedom to say this. Secondly, this is a lie; thirdly, this person might be color blind!

Julius Malema is a dunce. Firstly, history shows us that this is in fact true; secondly, I have the right, based on the freedom of speech principles, to say this and thirdly, what stops Julius from hitting me with a defamation lawsuit?

Were all aware of the ANCYL challenges to reporters, this has opposing opinions. But how far can freedom of speech go before its bordering on defamation? "Julius must die" What if someone says this? Freedom of speech laws will kick in, but then a death threat case can also kick in. Who decides what was "meant"?

If you think hard and long, you'll realize the worst excuse supposed "spokesperson’s" always give after someone in the ANC said something they were not supposed to say, bar freedom of speech, is that what was said was taken out of context, and was taken the wrong way or its meaning at that time was taken the wrong way!

Take exibit A:

"Kill the boer" while chanting and singing in front of an all black crowd.

We all drop our jaws and look at each other in awe - "how can he say that?"

Spokesperson's response to complaints of racism and dare we say fascist behavior..."it was taken out of context" So what was the context of killing the boer? Killing the boer can only mean one thing- killing the boer! It can't mean, help the boer sow seeds, or help the boer milk cows. It can only mean what was said!

No freedom of speech:

Freedom of speech sounds liberal, but yet its detained, constrained by words, meanings - its like you are free to say what you want, but watch what you say! If we look at it that way, we actually don't have freedom to speak as we please. If I had the freedom to speak as I please, there would be no repercussions, I could talk about people as I please. I could say what I really wanted to but I can't. Sometimes you cannot say to your boss what you want - this to me, implies a warped image of what we believe to be freedom of speech.

Ever wanted to tell someone something, but it was either uncalled for or inappropriate? That is when you defeat the purpose of freedom of speech!

Or...we don't utilize our freedom more often:

If its not a case of no freedom of speech...but more a case of we not using our freedom to talk when we should, must, can, are allowed to talk. Freedom represents no blockages, no stopping, no authority...or does it? Speech has consequences! You have freedom to speak, but watch what you speak, or whom you speak to or of. That to me, still does not represent a true form of freedom to speak as I please. Thus to conclude, my general hypothesis on this matter would be that freedom and speech cannot be put together, as one represents no constraints while the other represents many constraints and challenges once one says what is not to be said!

OS over and out - we should look at what the freedom to speak really entails, is it to talk as we please, or to talk to a certain degree? Then it should be known as "limited freedom of speech".