--- In [email protected], [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > In a message dated 6/30/07 7:06:21 P.M. Central Daylight Time, > [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > > The point is that he > complained about "too much freedom of speech." IOW, he is for > restraining freedom of speech which is something we cannot tolerate. > > Fire Fire Fire! There is a Fire in the Theater! So I guess > freedom of speech is an absolute?
The problem, of course, is, where do you draw the line? And who draws it? Who decides what "terrorist speech" is, and on what basis? Who do you trust to make such judgments? Plus which, even if we were able to make such judgments with a high degree of accuracy and absence of bias, the whole idea is not feasible. The Internet is too big to be adequately surveilled, first of all; and second, it's not technically possible to keep "dangerous" speech confined. Bottom line, it's empty rhetoric designed to inflame fears for political advantage, not a practical solution to the problem of terrorism.
