دیدگاه‌ها (2)

دستگاه اتوماتیک ترجمه توسط گوگل ترنسلیت فراهم است. ترجمه‌های مذکور باید ایده‌ای کلی درباره نظر کاربران به شما بدهند اما نمی‌توان به صحت آن‌ها کاملا اتکا کرد. لطفا ترجمه‌ها را با در نظرگرفتن این مساله بخوانید.

1. William O'Chee آوریل 7, 2012 در 7:49 ق.ظ
   replyبرای پاسخ دادن وارد شوید report Report comment

   دیدگاه شما در انتظار بررسی است.

   The difficulty with this discussion – in fact much of the discussion in this debate – is that freedom of speech tends to be treated as though it has a special status to which other rights are largely expected to accord.

   In reality, freedom of speech is an important right, but there are others, and sometimes they will come into conflict. It follows that the status and value of free speech can only be sensibly discussed if one has a general framework for resolving conflicts of rights.

   Reason tells us that there must either be a hierarchy of rights, with rules to resolve conflicts of rights of a similar order, or else all rights must be treated as being on the same plane, with our deciding conflicts of rights according to the circumstances of each case.

   The difficulty presented by the latter approach is that rights cease to have any real value because they are not guaranteed of enforcement. It is also a manifestly deficient argumet because not all rights are equal. For example, the right to have a state funded university education, or the right to drive a car are clearly not on the same level as the right to not have one’s life taken, or the right to free speech.

   In ‘Two Concepts of Liberty’ Isaiah Berlin wrote that:

   “The sense of privacy itself, of the area of personal relationships as something sacred in its own right, derives from a conception of freedom which, for all its religious roots, is scarcely older, in its developed state, than the Renaissance or the Reformation. Yet its decline would mark the death of a civilisation, of an entire moral outlook.”

   Sadly much of the discussion of free speech to be found here assumes that the right to privacy should be limited to accommodate a broader right of freedom of speech.

   Perhaps the converse approach might be preferred.

   If we believe that freedom of speech, and privacy (the freedom to be left alone) are on the same level, then perhaps privacy should, as a general rule, prevail.

   Berlin said as much when he argued that, “If the liberty of myself or my class or nation depends on the misery of a number of other human beings, the system which promotes this is unjust and immoral.”

   Surely the invasion of privacy, or the assault on individual dignity, which is implicit in many expansive conceptions of freedom of speech, can only result in the sort of misery Berlin feared.

   Surely to key to resolving conflicts of equal rights is to be found in the manner in which they are exercised. If one right is actively exercised (that is, in such a fashion as to intrude on the rights of others), and a conflicting right is passively exercised, we must surely favour the passively exercised right over the actively exercised right.

   The reasons for this are simple. A passively exercised right seeks to detract from none, to make no inroads on the liberty of others. It must be protected and preferred. Were we to do the contrary, then we would favour those who intrude on others, and we would ultimately pitch society into ceaseless conflict.

   If one accepts this, then it is not the nature of the subject which should determine the extent (or limits) of free speech.

   Perhaps we should look at other factors, such as whether we are truly dealing with the free advocacy of ideas, or merely an unfettered commentary on the lives of others.
2. raj kamal roshan ژانویه 24, 2012 در 11:49 ق.ظ
   replyبرای پاسخ دادن وارد شوید report Report comment

   I agree but to some extent. You have considered privacy and freedom of speech in case related to public figures. They do not comprise the whole state. I do not deny that these things don’t happen with them, but the majority should be given the priority first.
   Points in which u have considered politicians should be given the privacy is considerable, but, I, explain it as,
   They are elected just to serve their public, who choose him so he can listen to everyone and take a mutual decision in favor of everyone. he do needs the privacy just for a fixed period of time , so he can glance upon the subject and come up with either a good result or some genuine option. Now the point is that whether we have the right to speak freely and put our ideas in public, or the law is just I black and white.
   Coming to the point of privacy. As our elders say that we live in a democratic state can put our ideas thinking and wish outside but that point should not create any problem for others. But critical cases are of public figures or so called celebrities , They do need the privacy but just in their personal life . Coming publically makes them the figure of public , they represent what public is, was or want to be ? So Privacy and freedom of speech, when considered in case of common people have a limit but when it is considered for public figure . After a certain time interval privacy should not be there. This is the ultimate base of many social problems which we are facing today. If privacy of public figures is made transparent then a lot of problems will be solved automatically.
   At the end, I would just like to summaries that privacy is limited for somebody’s personal life and when it comes to public , it should be made transparent along with freedom of speech.
3. Brazen Bantam ژانویه 23, 2012 در 1:45 ب.ظ
   replyبرای پاسخ دادن وارد شوید report Report comment

   I sympathise with the views expressed here but recognise that once the cat is out of the bag it is out and cannot be put back. What is required is higher standards in those who have access to and control of sensitive personal information of people who are exposed to public scrutiny. It is true that nobody is perfect so a fitting reprisal for a person who decides to make public somebody else’s sensitive personal secrets might be to open up their private life to public scrutiny if it could be done. That should make people think twice before deciding what really is in the public interest should it not?

   The point about the cost of legal action is well known and true but is it justified? Taxpayers have already paid for Her Majesty’s Court Service. Why are they charged again for making use of it? Is that not double taxation? What happened to the noble aims of access to justice? Why are solicitors permitted to ask for payment before they have done any work? If they are paid for the time taken they are free to extend that as they will as I have witnessed in action. Is it not time to examine and review the justification for these things? Why are solicitors permitted to treat their clients as if they cannot be trusted to pay bills? What plumber gets paid before doing the work?

   What I suggest is missing is a moral compass as we have witnessed in the conduct of far too many members of what may be generally described as high society society receiving over generous payments from the public purse not to serve the public but deprive them of what is their due by corrupt practices, non disclosure of information they are entitled to receive but are refused it when requested. That is what the Freedom of Information Act was designed to rectify but more effort is being put into hiding information than disclosing it.

   What part has been played by the Established Church of this country in setting the example of proper moral conduct and standards in society. I suggest it has not and is part of the problem.