- Joined
- May 19, 2005
- Messages
- 30,534
- Reaction score
- 10,717
- Location
- Louisiana
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian - Right
Higgs, you're a good dude. That said I know that Europe's adaption to the problems of the WW's was to limit speech said to contribute to it, no one in their right mind would condone personally rhetorical choices which single out people on the basis of race, religion, sex, or anything else which balkanises human beings. This said even the speech we detest the most if protected must be shielded from government interference within very specific boundaries. The only time we should limit speech is for fraud, incitement to riot/violence, defamation, and only things which endanger the public under normal circumstances. I do not think that a diplomatic problem caused by a small minority is enough to limit speech which passes the SLAPS test under any circumstance.Hey I dont really like it either but our Govs seem to want to maintain diplomatc and economic ties in the region so we are going to have to give somewhere else we risk more lives etc.
While I think most of us realize that the video in question was completely full of ****, the problem comes from it's political origins, SLAPS(Serious Literary Artistic Political Scientific) exists for a reason, this is to advance thought.........whether well or poorly founded towards the public discourse which then becomes our duty to accept or reject it. This work, which has been largely dismissed as a minority opinion is protected, we as a public must accept that the right to produce the work does exist, then we must understand that it is flawed, and those that would attack us using it as a shield need to be dealt with. Exchange of ideas is so critical that the founders decided that things antithetical to that which they believed in must be protected, this speaks volumes to just how important human communication was to them.