|
I think when we use excuses for our actions it is a way of passing the blame |
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
 |
|
This is too broad a definition.
Free Speech does not imply physical violence against innocence.
That would be under the title of : Assault.
In one form or another. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
There are creeping restrictions on freedom of speech across the Western world. I think this is a
disturbing development. In my view, speech should be unrestricted other than when it involves the
disclosure of information regarding which the would-be speaker has already voluntarily accepted
certain restrictions on his or her freedom of speech. This would be the case, for example, with
non-disclosure agreements or the Official Secrets Act applying to a former government employee.
Since I'm often very critical of America, let me, in this one instance, hold it up as an example for
European countries to follow. The support for free speech has been more resilient there, although
demands for restrictions on "hate speech" are being heard more often and even introduced
legislatively.
If we accept the idea that anything which promotes violence should be banned, we need to decide who
is going to make those decision, first of all. Then, whoever it is will have broad latitude to ban
whatever he doesn't like, because the term is so broadly defined that it is capable of multiple
interpretations.
The speech of those who once agitated for democracy, or an end to slavery, could certainly have been
construed as promoting violence. If these restrictions had been in effect historically, speech we
now regard as laudable and just could have been criminalised. |
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
21 Jun 2008 08:18
Sign In
For and Against Recent Activity
