|
|
|
|
|
by 2preserve
3273 days ago
|
|
> Proving you do not have or support Free Speech, you support "Reasonably Restricted Speech" which is not the same thing See, this is exactly what I said. I didn't need to build a strawman. You did it for me. I'm free to run down the street swinging your fists, but if I swing my fist into someone's face and break their nose, that's bad. I think we can all agree on that, right? What if I told you that swinging my fists was a form of "artistic expression", or was part of my religion? Should I be free to express myself at the expense of the rest of society? |
|
The fact that restricting the verbal equivalent of "swinging fists into others' faces" may be a good thing doesn't mean that can be redefined as free speech, because everyone has their own idea of what these reasonable restrictions are. Free speech is free speech, even if it's in practice a bad idea.