What is it with you and not having standards, Bridget?
Originally Posted by Lanie
What? What does this mean? How does this apply to what Nova said?
Your right to swing your fists stop at my face.
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.
If speech will hurt people, then it shouldn't be legal.
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.
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.
However, it's believed that NAMBLA encourages child molestation. If that's the case, then we need to put a stop to NAMBLA.
Why is it that only liberals coddle child molesters? Why is that?
Ody, most people (liberal or conservative) do not support child molestation.
That's because you're egomaniacal children that cannot stand to be told you're wrong.
It's usually the left who advocates limiting speech.
Where were you going with this?
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.