On Fri, 28 Apr 2006 15:56:38 +0200, Charles Iliya Krempeaux 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> To be honest, I'd rather not have anything or anyone take away my or 
> anyone
> else's freedom of speech.
>
> Doesn't matter what you say or what you talk about, and no matter how
> distasteful it is to others.  (Freedom of speech means anything can be 
> said
> at any time.)

Err... I'm confused. Are you saying that to you, personally, freedom of 
speech should be tht anything can be said at any time? Or are you saying 
that freedom of speech is that anything can be said at any time?
The first we can agree to disagree on, that's a matter of opinion. I 
believe that certain types of speech should be restricted 
(Misappropriation of name or likeness for example). The latter is just 
wrong. Freedom of Speech has never included a carte blanche to say 
anything. Libel and slander restrictions has existed well before freedom 
of speech was ever invented as a concept, and there's a long history of 
certain types of speech being restricted (some worse than others; sedition 
acts being pretty bad, "fighting words" making more sense).

--
Andreas Haugstrup Pedersen
<URL: http://www.solitude.dk/ >
Commentary on media, communication, culture and technology.


SPONSORED LINKS
Fireant Individual Typepad
Use


YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS




Reply via email to