Drugging and raping a 13 year old is now just "having sex with a former teen".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Novaheart

There is no "but". You either believe in free speech or you don't.

---

I do not subscribe to the George W. Bush "with us or against us" magazine.

Your right to swing your fists stop at my face.

If speech will hurt people, then it shouldn't be legal. Now, in the of "hate speech," I'm starting to rethink my position after all the drama over an anti-Islamic 12 minute, youtube film. I understand that the man broke his parole, but I don't want to think we'll make laws against the anti-Islamic speech just because some nutcases in the middle east threaten us.

However, it's believed that NAMBLA encourages child molestation. If that's the case, then we need to put a stop to NAMBLA.

Ody, most people (liberal or conservative) do not support child molestation. It's usually the left who advocates limiting speech. An example of this was in about 2004. I saw an ad from the International Socialist Organization on campus that directly said "No Freedom of Speech for the KKK." It was asking people to come to Raleigh to counter protest the KKK. So yeah, not all leftists support freedom of speech for kooks. Sometimes, they go too far with it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lanie

I do not subscribe to the George W. Bush "with us or against us" magazine.

---

What is it with you and not having standards, Bridget?

Quote:

---

Your right to swing your fists stop at my face.

---

What? What does this mean? How does this apply to what Nova said?

Quote:

---

If speech will hurt people, then it shouldn't be legal.

---

You have a right to say what you wish, you do not have a right to not be offended. I will not compromise my liberty for anyone's definition of "hurt". You libs have been telling those of us that want TV and movies cleaned up that if we didn't like it, turn it off. Well, alchemist, take some of your own medicine.

I cannot be more different than Nova, but in this we are in complete agreement. I think what he says is insipid, pedestrian, ignorant, and unnecessary but I will not see him silenced because I don't agree.

Quote:

---

However, it's believed that NAMBLA encourages child molestation. If that's the case, then we need to put a stop to NAMBLA.

---

Your definition of "we" and mine are miles apart. The "we" that needs to stop NAMBLA is we the people, not "we" the government. When you get the government involved, you set legal precedence that will be used in the future against you by someone who disagrees with you. That's how it works when you want to wield the weight of the government.

Quote:

---

Ody, most people (liberal or conservative) do not support child molestation.

---

Why is it that only liberals coddle child molesters? Why is that?

Quote:

---

It's usually the left who advocates limiting speech.

---

That's because you're egomaniacal children that cannot stand to be told you're wrong.

Quote:

---

An example of this was in about 2004. I saw an ad from the International Socialist Organization on campus that directly said "No Freedom of Speech for the KKK." It was asking people to come to Raleigh to counter protest the KKK. So yeah, not all leftists support freedom of speech for kooks. Sometimes, they go too far with it.

---

Where were you going with this?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lanie

I do not subscribe to the George W. Bush "with us or against us" magazine.

---

I have no idea what you are referring to, but civil rights aren't political parties or political-business-religious objectives that George Bush might have been referring to. Civil rights are indeed something you affirm or you don't. For example, you either affirm the Second AMendment or you don't; if you say "but...." and then go on to list the infringements you personally find acceptable, then you have disaffirmed the Second Amendment because it states that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

By the same token, all manner of distasteful speech is protected by the First Amendment. The line is not drawn between that which is offensive and that which is inoffensive, the line is drawn where speech amounts to a conspiracy to commit a criminal act or where speech is an immediate threat to the safety of others. Even then, in the absence of any obvious effort or ability to fulfill the plan, a conviction is unlikely.

When we consider the limits of free speech, we must consider the principle of free speech, not the alleged interest of society or its desire to be safe; that is the path to undoing the Bill Of Rights as any issue can be portrayed as one of safety and any infringement can be fit into the context of safety.

The late Victor Van Bourg contended that the NAZI's marching through a Jewish neighborhood were not simply exercising free speech, they were reasserting a credible threat, ie because NAZI's had gone on to kill Jews en masse in the past then they would do it again. I adore the argument, but disagree with the conclusion.

By the way, I disagree with the "shouting fire" doctrine as well. You simply are not responsible for how other people react to what you do. While it might seem reasonable that "shouting fire in a theater" is a criminal act, we now have the situation where shouting insults to Mohammed can trigger violent and irrational people to act in violent and irrational ways. How would that be your fault?