A statement about which there is a significant level of dispute is usually categorized as an opinion. A statement which claims certainty or to be backed by irrefutable proof is usually given a more grandiose title like judgement or law. Certainty and proof are never universal because they are always claimed by self-interest groups. The pragmatic reality is that all statements are just opinions. To suppose some utterances have cosmic import is a comic pretention. An opinion at best can only be the statement of an individual, public or private, within the constraints of the bias of their nurture and which is based on an evenhanded attempt to evaluate the available and relevant evidence. At worst, an opinion is little more than the squawk of a seabird, taking to flight, after a feed of regurgitated rubbish. Having consumed reiterated handouts and detritus from the past it then launches itself into space. An onshore wind can support whole flocks of opinions, soaring effortlessly, all pointing in the same direction. When the wind drops, opinions simply conserve energy by decorating various vantage points or flap around aimlessly looking for one. Just like this one.

It has been traditional to assume that there is a distinction between what is classified as belief and what is classified as knowledge. The utterance of any individual human, about any concepts whatever, will be nothing more than ordinary speculative opinion. The more coloured the opinion becomes, by any self-interested weighting of the evidence, the more it can be designated as belief. Even what is categorized pretentiously as knowledge, is probably only an aggregate of plausible recycled opinions. One only has to consider what once was counted as knowledge and is now shown to be the most unsubstantiated of opinion and belief, to be deeply suspicious of the bulk of self-serving utterances.

An often expressed opinion is that...everyone is free to voice their own opinion...but this depends largely upon which direction the gun is pointing. What ultimately matters are the pragmatic realities. Any attempt to lingustically analyse the status of such recursion is destined for incomprehensiblity.

Groups espousing individual equity and freedom from exploitation might give the above opinion a label of truth. Such groups however are immediately confronted with the dilemma that certain individuals would thereby be given licence to express opinions contrary to their own...to propose racial bias for example, or the sexual exploitation of their children.

Groups denying the right for anyone to express their opinion have an agenda of retaining power. They are usually political, religious or military.

Whatever the social environment, be it dictatorship, hagiocracy or democracy, all that matters to the individual expressing the opinion is the nature of the consequences. In order to embrace an opinion privately it is necessary only to think about it conceptually, vocalise it in a location where the walls do not have ears, or write it down secretly somewhere. Individuals should only express their opinions in public in the knowledge that if certain authorities have the power, then the consequences may be both a denial of the opinion and retribution.

Short of being gagged and bound hand and foot then, individuals are free to say or write whatever they like wherever they like. What needs very careful consideration and preparation, is an estimation of the strength of any forces which might choose to take exception.