Hooray the Unites State of America? I think the point to be heeded in the quote is "hence, likewise, they will avoid the necessity of those overgrown military establishments" as it certainly is not what we have avoided by binding ourselves into this more perfect union. And again, this quote does not lead to one saying hooray for America today.

Correct sentiment. Balanced is a way of expressing oneself that usually results in expressing a neutral POV with no inherent moral choice. And as for "those in power"...knwoing who they are in the world today, I would hardly want my opinions censored by their views of mine.

The quote is a clearly atrticulated quote, and therefore revealing in quite an overt way of the insidiousness of the control of free speech in the name of repressing social discord. Coming from Canada? Sounds like the dictum in China that uses the desire for a "Harmonious Society" as the bedrock upon which the homogeneity of social behavior is legally encoded. Inciting outrage and more hatred with the expression of undesireable -isms is one way of getting out in the open opinions that will untimately die a death of their own when exposed to the light of day and discourse. No one likes to hear that there are people who hate Jews, Muslims or Christians, or homosexuals or heterosexuals, but passing laws that repress this free expression of opinions will only allow those prejudices to fester and grow to degrees not possible when you throw them into the arena of public debate. Hatred bred in isolation is far more dangerous than the possible fall out from expressingy one's narrow idiocy in public.

Simple. Nice. Makes freedom something that is vital and alive made possible through intention and action.

Any dogmatism that believes that it is more right than others, and is also in the business of conversion, proselytizing, jihad, world hegemony or a tryanny of political ideology is as bad as any other. Islam is hardly the only special interest group suffering from this malady.

This is the necessity for all discourse that may then hopefully lead to a resolution of conflict--one reason that in the current practice of diplomacy not talking to your adversray makes absolutely no sense and is self defeating.

I think it is meant in a Ayn Randian sort of way--that until the individual is self empowered they cannot LOVE.

Art as a work for hire, doing something that your patron approves of, did go out the window with the liberation of the artist from strict systems of patronage. How could the artists of the modern era-the impressionists, supremacists, abstract expressionists and color field painters-have every achieved the cognitive breakthroughs they did that were only possible through a process that was inner-directed not other-dictated. Their goal was finally andno longer the need to create to please. The whole point in art (well one of them anyway) is that it is not craft, work that is functional made for practical use based on someone else's needs or requirements. And if some contemporary art shocks this is its raison d'etre, to shake you out of your complacency with the status quo. It is still ok to hate it, but maybe it makes you realize you can hate other things that are also BS, like the political and social status quo.

Of course, but a simple quote.

Freedom as an end in itself as expressed here sounds like it would be an uncontested truism, but all values that are expressed as absolutes cannot be effective unless coupled with the verb that may put them into action. "Striving" is as key to what this quote envisions as are the freedoms that may be arrived at only through conscientious people doing the morally right thing. Undisciplined and unearned freedom is as dangerous in society as it is vacuous in art.

The freedom of the artist has always been intrically tied to the economic means made available to him/her that thus enables them to pursue a full creatively productive life. The Renaissance was an amazing period in human thought and innovation, but the artists were intricately linked to the power structure of the time-theVatican. It has always been one of my ruminations to imagine what Michelangelo, Brunelleschi, DaVinci and friends might have created if freed with their amazing genius from the constraints of religious subject matter. As for Louis XIV, it is a stretch to give him credit for creating modernity, and then imply that it is this era that has deprived the artist of his individualism. For good or bad the modern artist enjoys levels of unfettered freedom that no others in human history have.

I would only give this five because of the source, whose brilliance is humbling.

This is obviously a truism, and only rather inane because it is relating something inherent to the scientific process (and rightly so to "all learning" per Archer) but is presented here as if it is some kind of revelation when it could not really be otherwise. It functions more as a simple definition.

Yes, I believe Mike is correct in his interpretation - men of conviction and ideas do not cease to exist but they must work in less conspicuous ways. I have witnessed even greater exercise of creative voice in cultures that have repressive governments than in ones that profess unlimited free speech. The need to speak out against powerfully sanctioned evil is much stronger in those for whom it is a matter of life or death, and even mor importantly they are not ambiguous about the messages they relay.

Playing with words that mean nothing. Unlike some quotes that do this and can at first seem profound this one does not even hold up on first reading.

I understand Robert's concern, but here again curbing free speech does not seem to be the solution, rather educating people to be able to think objectively and be capable of discriminating analysis would help cultivate the healthy "skepticism" introduced above and thus be a more effective way of undermining the dangers promulgated by types of free expression that are not humane, than by repressing the free expression itself. When you don't allow the idiot to speak, their silence may look more like reserved wisdom...you know, the tall silent type. Dangerous.

At the core of America's mythology is the idea that free speech is one of our fundamental pillars of Liberty, and when I say mythology I mean this in a positive Joseph Cambell sense. However the near complete failure of our educational system advances the danger that there will be little ability on the part of the body politic to discrimante for themselves when confronted by manipulative, power driven propaganda couched in the convenient accolade of free speech. This would make a case for education being more of a fundamental and pressing need than freedom of speech. What good is free speech when it is a corporately owned network spewing Orwellian double speak or a fundamantalist whatever preaching dominion over the infidel and uncoverted. If you can't tell truth from fiction you are vulnerable. The anitdote for freedom of speech gone awry is intelligence.

Exactly the opposite is true. Science must invest vast bodies of fact before a theory becomes agreed upon by the scientific community.

In science the ability to replicate the outcome of experiments is what gives science proof and certainty. That is why it is science and not conjecture based solely on a faith that things are the way you would want them to be, or the way someone thought they were millenia ago.

Very strange.

I have to feel ambivalent about the extremes of freedom of expression, its repression and its indulgence. In this country our feeling that we can say anything we want is a deceptive freedom. People can talk their heads off to try to change the insanity of our current political situation and then be categorically dismissed as confused (ie. Colin Powell regarding the the Geneva Conventions) or labeled as giving comfort to the enemy (wanting to do the right thing for our troops - bring them home.) In politcally repressive systems, when exercising freedom of speech actually requires true courage, its efffects can be that much more potent.

This is an interesting comment considering the year in which it was penned. The freedom of expression that characterizes modern and contemporary art was not always the perceived role of the artist when art was commissioned and patronized well into the late 19th century. I also love the sentiment that the artist transfers the liberty inherent in self expression to those who partake in their works. It speaks to the living and transformative force of art.

It has amazed me that even among the baby boom generation which so vehemently rejected the materialistic value system of their parents when we were young, so many of them have now forgotten that children rarely emulate therir parents. Case in point is that so many baby boomers don't like hip hop and rap, can't understand how their kids can listen to it and try to put a curb on their cultural choices. Things change--learn from the young.

PJ O'Rourke is a political satirist/humorist. Exactness may not be his intent in this quote with regard to the commandments, covetousness, economic redistribution of wealth, or socialism vs. free market capitalism. This is supposed to make you laugh.

We should rate the responses, not just the quotes--Joe wins today.