>if you must argue my analogy, you will need to do much
>better than this as a horse on a rein is not in any way,
>shape, or form 'free'. a horse on a rein is an enslaved
>horse. so to keep working your analogy, you are against
>free speech, just as you have no problem subjugating a
>horse.
I'm not against "free" speech, I'm against feral speech. How would you like to come home and find your next door neighbour had decided to "free" his horses to trample and eat your garden?
Yet this is an apt analogy to the feral speech you advocate, nothing less than the right to say whatever you please, no matter what suffering it causes to others. People have the right to free speech, but other people also have the right to be free of racial vilification.
Rights have to be balanced in the real world. A horse isn't very bright, it has to be kept on a rein, or fenced in, to protect the right of your neighbours to grow crops. Well a racist isn't much brighter than that, they have to be kept on a rein too, until they develop the human capacity to consider the rights of others.
Bill Bartlett Bracknell Tas