Subject:
|
Re: Schpiffkraft Hakenkreuz
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 10 Aug 2005 23:49:23 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1302 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.
|
Again, you’re talking about forced restricting. Is it possible that Nick and I
are suggesting that Richie should have restricted himself?
Also, you forgot to answer the question as to what exactly “speech behavior” is.
Either its speech or its behavior (action) - so?
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
