Would you give up your freedom of speech for more financial security?

[NNN0LHI]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090611/wl_nm/us_iran_election_revolution_1

Life in Iran under the Shah and now

By Parisa Hafezi Parisa Hafezi – Thu Jun 11, 11:30 am ET

TEHRAN (Reuters) – Iranians vote on Friday in the 10th presidential election since the 1979 Islamic revolution which toppled the U.S.-backed Shah.

Three decades after the revolution, Reuters invited some older Iranians who witnessed the Shah's overthrow to look back at the changes they have lived through.

Here are some of their views:

LIVING COSTS

"Before the revolution, most Iranians could afford to buy a flat, but now even rents are not affordable for people like me," said Mahmoud Sardari, a retired government employee who earns $400 a month. snip

FREEDOM OF SPEECH

Many Iranians remember the Shah's secret police, Savak.

"Under the Shah we could not even think about criticizing the system publicly, because of the Savak," said Iraj Nemati, 60, owner of a carpet shop.

"But wherever you go now, people are criticizing the system, the government's economic policies and so on," he said. "Today Iranians enjoy much more freedom of expression than 30 years ago.

"Iranians turned against the Shah because there was no freedom in the country," he said.

[virginia mountainman]

1. Many people support extreme restrictions;

On the 2nd Amendment, why should the first be any different?

[havocmom]

2. WORD

[dorkulon]

6. Don't you think that's a bit ridiculous?

I'm not really all that hopped up about guns either way, but I think freedom of expression is a little more fundamental to humanity than the freedom to shoot stuff. I would (I imagine you would as well) rather live in England, say, than Yemen.

[virginia mountainman]

8. One of the most important tenets of freedom..

Is the ability to resist....

Think of it this way too, if it is ok, to restrict the 2nd Amendment, tightly, Who is to say that those same kinds of restrictions cannot be applied to the rest of the Bill of Rights?? After all, if it is thought to be "ok" to tightly restrict ONE of the Bill of Rights, certainly you can tightly restrict them all in the same way...

That is incredibly dangerous logic.

[dorkulon]

9. Well it doesn't look as though that's happening

anytime in the near future anyhow. But if that's your major objection, then it wouldn't bother you if it was revoked by constitutional amendment?

At any rate, I was just making the point that equating the 1st and 2nd doesn't make sense to me, regardless of the legal domino effect you're proposing. There are decent countries in this world where no one can own a Glock, but there are none where people are not free to speak their minds--in fact, that very quality renders any nation indecent.

[hobbit709]

3. Not only NO but HELL NO!!!!

[Gman2]

5. Bullshit, you already do. The corporate straightjacket is getting tighter

They have your credit check, google, background checks, references, moral turpetuity clause. I have a hard time with corps, as they catch wind that I'm not a winger, seemingly by osmosis.

[hobbit709]

7. Screw the corporations

I don't work for any of them and haven't in quite a while. And when I did they couldn't shut me up. Then can do credit checks, etc. all they want, I don't care. By my moral standards, ALL corporations are guilty of moral turpitude.

[Fumesucker]

4. I'm starting to wonder what difference it makes..

It really doesn't matter that much who you vote for, the "serious" candidates have all been pre approved by the corporatarchy anyway.

Nobody who really intends to make truly basic changes to our corporate dominated system is going to be allowed anywhere near the reins of power.