Clarification and Application of Statutes of 1-3
Statute number one, the freedom of thought, is pretty self-explanatory. All
persons have the right to hold any beliefs, thoughts, ideas or opinions that they wish to.
No one can be persecuted for holding any opinion whatsoever, nor may any personís
thoughts be directly altered against their will. This is the paramount human freedom and
may not be violated under any circumstances.
Statutes two and three serve to protect this primary freedom. Some clarification
of these three freedoms may be necessary to prove that they in no way conflict. The
second statute, the freedom of knowledge, has three applications. Firstly, all persons
have the right to partake of any knowledge that another is willing to share. No person or
institution may interfere in the sharing or exchange of knowledge between two willing
parties. Secondly, all persons have the right to refuse to partake of any knowledge.
Lastly, knowledge is property. No person may forcibly extract knowledge from another
who does not wish to share it nor gain through means of espionage, including bugs,
wires, stuff like that. The third statute is the freedom of expression, meaning that anyone
may express any ideas they wish through whatever media they wish. Also, any person
may choose not to express any idea.
At first glance, these statutes may appear to be in some conflict with each other,
especially the second two. How can a person have the right to not receive knowledge
when everyone else has the right to express whatever knowledge they wish? No one can
use you or your property as a means of expressing themselves without your consent. This
means that people are able to express themselves freely without violating personal
property. For example, it is perfectly acceptable to post anything on a billboard, even
though, by their very nature, they are virtually impossible to miss seeing. This is because
the receiver's person or property is in no way violated by the message. Likewise no one
can express their aggression by beating you up (unless you give your consent) because this
would violate your self. And if you donít wish to be exposed to some piece of
knowledge just stay inside, or look the other way, or shut off the TV, itís not like
anybodyís making you watch it. These facts may appear to be in conflict with the first
statute, the freedom of thought. It may appear that a personís beliefs may be changed
against their will if they are bombarded by incessant media. However, being exposed to
certain ideas does not force you to change your own ideas. It may, however, force you to
reconsider them, and this is a good thing.