[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: The only next step possible

On Sep 12, 2001 Bent C Dalager <bcd@pvv.ntnu.no> wrote
   in <9nnjn6$iug$8@tyfon.itea.ntnu.no>:

> In article <tpt6hq94vmh788@corp.supernews.com>,
> Vincent Phillpotts <vphillpotts@madasafish.com> wrote:

> >Would you argue for the free speech of a Terrorist Islamic
> >Fundementalist?
> >No you wouldn't.

> This is exactly the situation in which it is most important to protect
> free speech. You cannot allow yourself to allow to restrict it for
> _any_ reason for when you do, you have lost it.

There are already laws against inciting violence.  To refer to the famous
legal doctrine, free speech does not extend to "shouting `fire' in a
crowded theater".  But I agree with you that freedom of speech should not
be restricted any further in the wake of this action.  In particular all
of the cruelly insenstive idiots who are saying things to the effect of,
"Hah, it is nice to see the US get what it deserves" must have their
rights protected.  Even if those people support the enemies of those

> It isn't free speech that has now killed thousands, it is terrorism.



Jeffrey Goldberg
 I have recently moved, see http://www.goldmark.org/jeff/contact.html
 Relativism is the triumph of authority over truth, convention over justice
 From line IS valid, but use reply-to.