Warp wrote:
>   Thus "freedom of speech" is the same type of oxymoron as "free speech
> zone".

Not really. "Freedom of speech" means you can't pass laws about the 
content of speech.

For example, you can be stopped from shouting loudly while standing in 
the middle of a residential street in the middle of the night, 
regardless of what you're shouting about. You can't be stopped for 
talking about religion or economic theory, regardless of what the 
religion or theory is, because that would be based on content rather 
than delivery.

Defamation (i.e., lying about someone to damage them) is a civil 
problem. In other words, the government isn't trying to stop you from 
doing it. The person you're lying about can say "your lies cost me 
money, so pay me back and stop doing it." In the USA, truth is an 
absolute defense to defamation charges; i.e., if you actually did sleep 
with a prostitute, me making that public cannot get me in legal trouble.

A "free speech zone" is an oxymoron (in the USA) because free speech is 
guaranteed everywhere. Hence, the existence of a zone where it's 
permitted implies there are places where it isn't.

BOCTAOE.

-- 
   Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
     It's not feature creep if you put it
     at the end and adjust the release date.

Post a reply to this message