Chambers <ben### [at] pacificwebguycom> wrote:
> OK, after Darren's argument that both bad and good people have been
> censored in the past, can we at least agree that Censorship makes sense
> when someone is advocating infringing on the rights, freedoms, liberties
> and property of others, but that those rights do NOT include a "right to
> not be offended?"

  Democratic constitutional freedom of speech entitles anyone to express
their disagreement about the democratic constitutional process if they so
want. Censoring someone for expressing their opinion like that would
undermine the very principle of freedom of speech.

  As Evelyn Beatrice Hall wrote, "I disapprove of what you say, but I will
defend to the death your right to say it."

  Actively *doing* something (or making others do something) to harm others
or limit their rights is criminal, but not because of anything related to
freedom of speech.

  Criminalizing verbal offences is, in my opinion, a very shaky ground.
It's very easy to create laws related to this subject which are very vague
and can be used to limit freedom of speech in ways which were not intended
originally. It's also very easy to impose the law differently for different
people (which blatantly breaks the principle of equality).

  Sadly, this is becoming more and more common practice in the modern free
world. "Minorities" (which sometimes even aren't) are being overly protected,
even to the point where it becomes blatant discrimination against the
"majority", by a government which has swore to uphold democratic
constitutional rights for everybody.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message