One of the articles speaks about a guy who spoke at Defconf and promoted giving those attending the Republicats convention a hard time.
What surprised me is that the journalist did not have any problems with having the guy thrown out simply because the guy's speech was controversial. They justified censorship by stating that they had to stop him for his protection. Since when does a person in America have to abdicate his own personal responsibility and be protected for his own speech?
when the government, specifically the supreme court, is the sole arbiter of where freedom of speech ends, you've already found yourself in a hell of a mess. (most people use the shouting fire example, but there are reasons you should restrain your freedom of speech even if entitled to it) The act of governing others needs to grow out of governing oneself, because until you can control yourself you're not capable of laying down the law for anyone else.
I might break the law by soap-boxing violent revolutio
About one of the articles posted... (Score:1, Interesting)
What surprised me is that the journalist did not have any problems with having the guy thrown out simply because the guy's speech was controversial. They justified censorship by stating that they had to stop him for his protection. Since when does a person in America have to abdicate his own personal responsibility and be protected for his own speech?
As far as I can tell f
Wrong opinions (Score:3, Insightful)
Free speech ends when you're inciting violence.
so how would you revolt? (Score:1, Insightful)
I might break the law by soap-boxing violent revolutio
Re:so how would you revolt? (Score:0)
Justice is the inexistence of forcibly imposed hierarchy among individuals.
Justice and equality (Score:2)
Some people are just better/more capable/ more deserving of certain limited resources.
It isn't just money or power, it's Friday night at the local bar, some guys get the hot chicks, and others don't.