--- In [email protected], "sparaig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], MDixon6569@ wrote: > > > > > > In a message dated 11/28/06 8:54:28 P.M. Central Standard Time, > > noozguru@ writes: > > > > Yes we don't need to reexamine freedom of speech and we need to take > > back what curbs have put on freedom speech. Anyone knows that freedom > > of speech and terrorist attacks have nothing in common. It is a straw > > man argument. > > > > > > > > > > Freedom of speech is not an absolute freedom. You can't yell "fire" in a > > crowded theater and you can't slander people. What specifically has Newt > > proposed as far as curbing freedom of speech? Is he referring to terrorist web-sites > > on the Internet? What curbs have already been made that you want to take > > back? > > Curtailing terrorist websites completely is probably impossible and probably counter- > indicated anyway. As long as they get to publish stuff freely, you at least know what they > are thinking (or at least want you to think they are thinking). The further underground > such groups go, the harder it will be to stop them.
The more speech you curtail, the more speech you *have* to curtail. It's a vicious circle. So far, the terrorists have been remarkably successful in forcing us to give up the freedoms they despise us for, the very freedoms we are supposedly fighting them in order to preserve.
