The condition or state of being safe; freedom from danger or hazard; exemption from hurt, injury, or loss., Freedom from whatever exposes one to danger or from liability to cause danger or harm; safeness; hence, the quality of making safe or secure, or of giving confidence, justifying trust, insuring against harm or loss, etc., Preservation from escape; close custody., Same as Safety touchdown, below.
Yes, freedom is more important in concept than the word safety because freedom includes safeness. Freedom is the privilege to be self-ruling, self sustaining and able to be in a community which is not oppressive and harmful. In a free community the people are safe because they do not have to fear being harmed by an oppressor. Safety concerns freedom from danger and harm. So Freedom trumps safety since it is a part of freedom. Not necessarily. The two are not comparable in this way. Children clearly need the safety and guidance of a loving home, but whether they need the freedom to hang out on the cell-phone and wear provocative clothing is not clear. In commerce, regulation attempts to free people from danger and fraud by limiting the freedom of businesses to prey upon their cupidity.
Yes, it is. It means causing harm, or able to cause harm.
No, damage is a synonym for harm.
Oppress or oppressing is the opposite of give freedom or giving freedom. Another antonym is enslave.
Security means freedom from danger or threat.
Citizens have the freedom to express themselves if they are not causing harm to other people.
Citizens have the freedom to express themselves if they are not causing harm to other people.
He explains liberty as the basic things that he thinks everyone should be able to do. Freedom of conscience: believe what you like as long as it does not harm others Freedom of life: you canarrange your life in the way that you want without having to justify it to others Freedom of association: as long as the reason for meeting is not to harm others
Yes, the noun 'safety' is a commonnoun, a general word for freedom from harm or danger.
there is nothing that can deny the freedom of speech unless if its a civil case or fight through court when the person that was expressing there freedom caused bodily harm to there selves or other along with property damage and so on.
Yes, freedom of expression can be limited if any obscenity of defamation is used. Also, government can restrict your time, place, and manner. For example, you cant shout "Fire" in a theater just for fun. Somebody could get hurt rushing out of the theater. Freedom is a very valuable freedom, but could be limited in some ways. Yes, freedom of expression can be limited if any obscenity of defamation is used. Also, government can restrict your time, place, and manner. For example, you cant shout "Fire" in a theater just for fun. Somebody could get hurt rushing out of the theater. Freedom is a very valuable freedom, but could be limited in some ways.
nope you cant. Freedom of speech.
An anarchist believes in natural law: basically, you can do what you want, but only if what you do doesnt harm anyone or anyones propriety. Your freedom ends were other peoples freedom begins. Theorectically, that would be the only law.
Not to use harm to get freedom. Give love to your enemies. ( not exact words )
The harm principle, proposed by philosopher John Stuart Mill, states that the only justified reason for restricting an individual's freedom is to prevent harm to others. It argues that individuals should be free to make their own choices as long as those choices do not harm others.
To be able just be myself because I never harm or insult anyone with my way of being. So when others accept me as I am without judging me... I have my personal freedom