What Does It Mean To Be Free

Introduction ¬¬
Freedom can mean many different things. But the main question is, what does it mean to be free? What defines individual freedom in a civilized society? Are our choices mechanically determined by prior psychological causes or can we break free from those constraints and make choices that are genuinely free? The concept of ‘freedom’ or ‘liberty’ is not so easy to pin down. An individual can think of liberty as an absence of obstacles external to the agent. And on the other hand, an individual can think of liberty as the presence of control. To be free, one should be independent, which is to say that you must be able to control your own destiny in your own interests. In this report, I will explain the positive and negative concepts

He stated that these two types of freedom provides a useful distinction and it makes a case that theories of positive freedom have often been used as instruments of oppression and suggesting why we put a high value on freedom.
Negative liberty is the extent to which society doesn’t stop you from doing things. You are not prevented by law or social pressure. This type of freedom centres on freedom from interference. For example: You are restricting my negative freedom when you restrict the number of choices I can make about life. Also, for most of us, having freedom of speech is a more important freedom than the freedom to choose between ten different sorts of wall paint out there.
Another example is that if you park your truck across my drive, therefore your truck prevents me from getting my car out, it means that you are restricting my freedom. This is true even if I choose to stay in bed watching TV all day, and would have done so even if you hadn't parked there. Negative freedom is all about a matter of the doors open to all of us out there, not of whether we happen to choose to go through

It has its roots in the different histories of the two sections of the world. Most Americans believe that words and actions are very distinct and that words ought not to be criminalized but actions can be. This is also the core of the first amendment. In this situation, it is normally argued that the answer to hate speech is good speech and in time the latter will prevail. This approach comes from the historical backdrop of the United States which were founded by immigrants (mainly the religious ones) escaping from Europe because they were persecuted for practicing their specific religious views. Currently, America does not have any experience of religious wars. Moreover, most of the people from Europe believe that words and actions are related as the first can prompt to the second and that. In cases of especially hate speech, one ought not to wait until it actually results in bad actions and therefore it is argued that certain forms of hate speech ought to be criminalized before it leads to bad actions. This is the essence of our laws and in some European nations, it is the criminalization of the holocaust denial. The answer to worst of hate speech is to perform an action by starting a trial in court against someone, if ever they are this situation and the jury is expected to ensure to make sure that such trials are not used to hold back freedom of speech. This approach originates from the