Subject:
|
Re: Schpiffkraft Hakenkreuz
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 10 Aug 2005 21:41:54 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1436 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Samuel Morrison wrote:
| |
| |
I’m not sure Nick is advocating the legal restriction of speech in any
respect. How does your example of extremist clerics support your point about
allowing speech behavior? And what exactly is ‘speech behavior?’ An action
that garners freedom of speech?
I’m seriously not following your point at all.
-Lenny
|
Pretty simple - if it doesn’t hurt anyone to make a statement, it should be
protected. But if we start restricting things because it upsets someone,
we’re starting down a slippery slope. Offensive speech is the only type that
really needs protection.
|
I would imagine it’s hurtful to the Jews that survived the camps, as well as
Jews in general. But I guess I really don’t know. You seem to know what is and
isn’t hurtful
3o:)
This is an emoticon of me teabagging you. It doesn’t hurt anyone... let’s see
what happens next. I’m not actually teabagging you, mind you. It’s just a
symbol.
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Schpiffkraft Hakenkreuz
|
| (...) Pretty simple - if it doesn't hurt anyone to make a statement, it should be protected. But if we start restricting things because it upsets someone, we're starting down a slippery slope. Offensive speech is the only type that really needs (...) (19 years ago, 10-Aug-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
30 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
