>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
Free speech is one thing but you have to draw the line somewhere means, of course, that speech is no longer free. You have to take the good with the bad. If you accept the premise that speech should be regulated by the authorities you open the door to more harm than the harm done by having free speech. As I asked before, do you really believe if the current administration had the authority to stifle free speech they would hesitate for one minute to make it a crime to speak out against the current war in Iraq? In some countries I am aware that limiting speech to prevent racial hatred may work well. There is no evidence that it does that I am aware of. In the US it would more likely become a tool of oppression for anyone who disagrees with the current administration. The analogy of hitting someone does not holdup. You can't break someone's nose by calling them names. There is a limit of sorts in that you "cannot cry fire where there is none in a crowded theater". Note that this case of abridging free speech was to stifle criticism during the first World War. Judge Holmes famous fire line was applied quite inappropriately in that instance however. Charles Schenck was advocating for the breaking of no laws and his pamphlets contained no lies the equivalent of shouting fire where there is none. It was simply asking draftees to consider opposing their forced conscription through legal and peaceful means. You and Holmes both miss the point with your analogies although for different reasons. With this in US history you would grant the administration even greater powers in limiting free speech? You must be quite the optimist.
John Thornton