>we yanks aren't all alike, bill. i must agree with jon that in the US the
>first amendment is crucial. nobody in their right mind, either in the US or
>tasmania, advocates it be used for hate speech. but that is a very nasty
>price we pay for having free speech.
>
>yes, our bill of rights has almost been eliminated; large portions of our
>constitution have been perverted. that's certainly not a priority of mine
>or of anyone else i know. tolerating free speech is not the cause of this
>difficulty. *not* tolerating free speech is one of the causes.
>
>although "yank" isn't exactly a compliment where you come from, i have no
>problem with you or anyone using it.
"Yank" isn't necessarily derogatory, depends.
Free speech is one thing, but you have to draw the line somewhere, I draw the line at hate speech. Of course this isn't the cause of the loss of other essential liberties, but perhaps it is a symptom.
It seems to me that defending the right of people to incite racial hatred in the name of free speech betrays a kind of blinkered vision. The same kind of tunnel vision that is on display from those who justify betraying the fundamental principles of the rule of law, in the name of defending democracy.
Free speech is extremely important, but it is extremism to talk as if there are no limits. The line has to be drawn at the point where one person's "free speech" interferes with another person's right to live free of fear and discrimination. Your right to kick up your heels or swing your arms about also has to give way to my right not to have my bones broken.
Bill Bartlett Bracknell Tas