[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > In a message dated 7/1/07 11:43:05 A.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? >> > Now you're being childish just like your right wing gurus. > > > > > No Nooz, freedom of speech is not an absolute. There are all kinds of > restrictions on it. Think about it. Do you have a right to slander somebody, > incite > a riot, yell fire in a crowd theater? The list can go on and on what you > can't do that involves free speech. What is sacred, is free political speech > and > even that now has limitations on it. > That is beside the point. Our discussion was about Republicans calling for restrictions on free speech. Just as Judy points out who decides what restrictions there should be? How would you like it if I were in charge of policing speech? Better to have a free-for-all. We know that the Republicans want speech restrictions not for stopping terrorism (which it won't anyway) but to restrict speech critical of them. Though not Republican or an American, Tony Blair on leaving office called for a shutdown of 9-11 truth sites on the internet as he said they endanger government. To quote "V for Vendetta", "it is better for the government to be afraid of the people than people afraid of their government."
You challenged me a concrete source of a Republican wanting to ban free speech and I found one with Gingrich (Lott's interview was on the NYTime's site and would require a subscription for you to read). You lost and therefore like a lot of righties changed the topic.
