@marry_zxq: #рекомендации #мурзяка #fyp #рек

тгк: Мурзяка
тгк: Мурзяка
Open In TikTok:
Region: UA
Friday 05 September 2025 19:06:23 GMT
890
53
5
2

Music

Download

Comments

spdx07
из жалости :
не нада
2025-09-06 13:26:52
1
neskzol
🍓 :
2025-09-07 20:01:35
1
agentpreskot
DO DEPP :
Привет
2025-09-06 08:02:32
0
evgtrpwhit
E.white :
😋
2025-09-06 21:19:55
0
To see more videos from user @marry_zxq, please go to the Tikwm homepage.

Other Videos

Freedom of speech. They tell us free speech is a quaint relic — a nice theory for debating clubs and dinner parties — while quietly remaking the law to punish the awkward, the offensive, the inconvenient. That shift matters because speech is the pressure valve of a free society: when you criminalise insult, irony or impolitic opinion, you don't just silence rude tweets — you teach millions to self-censor, to second-guess, to swallow dissent until it ferments into something uglier. It’s not hyperbole to call the current trend worrying. Recent prosecutions for online comments and “abusive” messages — sometimes about public figures or political issues — show what happens when the state stretches criminal law to capture speech it dislikes. Whether you call the posts “mean,” “crude,” or “offensive,” the point is the same: punishment for words lowers the threshold for who gets targeted next. Today it’s a mean tweet; tomorrow it could be a sharp critique of government policy or a whistleblower’s sarcasm. Power never stays neutral. That is why platforms like the Oxford Union clip of Anne Widdecombe — speaking plainly about the right to speak, to offend, to provoke — still matter. They remind us that the defense of speech is not an abstract liberal hobby; it is a frontline political fight. The right to offend is the safety net that protects robust disagreement, creative dissent, and the whistleblowers whose complaints make institutions cleaner. To give the state power to lock up people for tone or temperament is to invite a chilling conformity that only benefits those already in charge. If you want rebellion, start here: insist that free speech means free speech for the messy, the satirical, the politically incorrect — not just the tasteful or the state-approved. Demand that laws aimed at harm be narrowly tailored, that criminal sanctions remain a last resort, and that public debate be the remedy for bad speech, not the prison cell. Defend the right to be offensive; defend the right to be wrong. Because if we surrender those rights for comfort, we will awaken in a country where dissent is a crime and power is absolute. #freedomofspeech #censorship #ukpolitics #fyp #fypviral
Freedom of speech. They tell us free speech is a quaint relic — a nice theory for debating clubs and dinner parties — while quietly remaking the law to punish the awkward, the offensive, the inconvenient. That shift matters because speech is the pressure valve of a free society: when you criminalise insult, irony or impolitic opinion, you don't just silence rude tweets — you teach millions to self-censor, to second-guess, to swallow dissent until it ferments into something uglier. It’s not hyperbole to call the current trend worrying. Recent prosecutions for online comments and “abusive” messages — sometimes about public figures or political issues — show what happens when the state stretches criminal law to capture speech it dislikes. Whether you call the posts “mean,” “crude,” or “offensive,” the point is the same: punishment for words lowers the threshold for who gets targeted next. Today it’s a mean tweet; tomorrow it could be a sharp critique of government policy or a whistleblower’s sarcasm. Power never stays neutral. That is why platforms like the Oxford Union clip of Anne Widdecombe — speaking plainly about the right to speak, to offend, to provoke — still matter. They remind us that the defense of speech is not an abstract liberal hobby; it is a frontline political fight. The right to offend is the safety net that protects robust disagreement, creative dissent, and the whistleblowers whose complaints make institutions cleaner. To give the state power to lock up people for tone or temperament is to invite a chilling conformity that only benefits those already in charge. If you want rebellion, start here: insist that free speech means free speech for the messy, the satirical, the politically incorrect — not just the tasteful or the state-approved. Demand that laws aimed at harm be narrowly tailored, that criminal sanctions remain a last resort, and that public debate be the remedy for bad speech, not the prison cell. Defend the right to be offensive; defend the right to be wrong. Because if we surrender those rights for comfort, we will awaken in a country where dissent is a crime and power is absolute. #freedomofspeech #censorship #ukpolitics #fyp #fypviral

About