Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Freedom of speech is a moral issue as well as a political one.
You're making the classic mistake of assuming freedom of speech ONLY relates to the 1st amendmant. It doesn't. It is a moral issue in its own right and the founding fathers knew it was so which is why they made it 1st priority in drawing up the constitution.
If you value freedom of speech (not just by what the constitution says but as a stand-alone, moral issue with regards to free and open discussion on public message boards) then you would not have made such an issue over my comments.
You clearly do not really care about freedom of speech, so let's not deny it
Of course I do otherwise I wouldn't even participate in this conversation.
This trial has been going on for about a year. As an American I find it repulsive that someone could be put on trial for saying something that might offend someone. I am very glad that justice prevailed in the end. No word on how much money the defendant had to spend in his defense though. In that regard, the trial still accomplished its intended effect for the government: intimidation to silence others who might speak out in a way that the government doesn't like.
This is a good thing. I've been following up this case in the Dutch press and most of them hoped that Wilders would win the trial. I think that there would have been a serious uproar if free speech would have been restricted, as less and less common Europeans (this excludes our godforsaken political elites) can stomach political correctness.
I think a true healthy society rests on two simple fundaments: you can say what you want, but you can't do what you want. In Europe, lot's of common people have had the feeling it's exactly the opposite when you have the luck of being part of a minority.
You think freedom of speech is something only valid in terms of the constitution. It isn't. It is a moral issue first and foremost.
In fact, the moral issue of free speech is what led the founding fathers to protect it in the first place! lol
We could do with an Internet 1st Amendment which would protect forum users (citizens) from moderators (officials). I'd say in regards to open message boards that INVITE members of the public to speak, we should have some sort of moral code on the 'net which protects speech.
Then again, 99.99% of humanity is either thick, stupid or fascist so it will never work. Which is pretty abysmal if one thinks about it
I never said I don't care about free speech as amoral issue.
All I said was there's nothing that could limit moderation on public forums. That's all.
It is really a difficult situation. On the one hand there is no point in offending anyone without good reason, on the other hand one should have the right to say when one considers a religion or ideology dangerous. Even government officials in various countries readily say sects such as Scientology are dangerous and warn people to stay away from them. Many of them are under observation by bodies defending the constitution. So why should we not be allowed to say the same thing when we are convinced Islam is just as bad or even worse for society. They made fun of Scientology on the Simpsons and all that happened was that Isaac Hayes quit the show. A couple of Scientologists were pissed, so what...
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.