Protecting free speech means even that speech which is abhorrent, yes? It is in the quality of rebuttal that one exercises civilized take down of repugnant ideas. By silencing the opposition, don't we indicate that our ideals are mere hypocrisy, practiced only when what is said is acceptable to the listener? I hold that in doing so, we…
Protecting free speech means even that speech which is abhorrent, yes? It is in the quality of rebuttal that one exercises civilized take down of repugnant ideas. By silencing the opposition, don't we indicate that our ideals are mere hypocrisy, practiced only when what is said is acceptable to the listener? I hold that in doing so, we risk abandoning democratic ideas for convenience. And they have turned us into them.
When someone propagates lies about the Coronavirus, it's akin to yelling 'Fire!' in a crowded theatre. There is no First Amendment right in this case.
There is no equivalence in 'protecting free speech' here. The opposition were not silenced, they were met with opposition and they chose to slink out of the room like the yellow bellied rat bastards that they are.
Protecting free speech means even that speech which is abhorrent, yes? It is in the quality of rebuttal that one exercises civilized take down of repugnant ideas. By silencing the opposition, don't we indicate that our ideals are mere hypocrisy, practiced only when what is said is acceptable to the listener? I hold that in doing so, we risk abandoning democratic ideas for convenience. And they have turned us into them.
When someone propagates lies about the Coronavirus, it's akin to yelling 'Fire!' in a crowded theatre. There is no First Amendment right in this case.
There is no equivalence in 'protecting free speech' here. The opposition were not silenced, they were met with opposition and they chose to slink out of the room like the yellow bellied rat bastards that they are.
Again, tolerating intolerance is not healthy.
Put that way, I understand the boundary. Thanks.