[lbo-talk] Limits on free speech?

[Bill Bartlett]

Couldn't agree more. There has to be a balance struck, between the 
public good of freedom of speech and the damage and distress caused 
to others. It can be a bit tricky determining that balance, but 
arguments that freedom of speech are absolute and it doesn't matter 
what harm you cause with your words, are stupid and obscene.

Bill Bartlett
Bracknell Tas

At 10:40 AM -0400 27/8/11, Wojtek S wrote:


>http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/27/technology/man-accused-of-stalking-via-twitter-claims-free-speech.html?ref=technology
>
>[WS:] My own view is that freedom of speech is good but only in
>moderation - just as about everything else.  It is good to the point
>when it promotes the exchange of ideas on public matters - and it
>ceases to be good when it is used to drown that exchange in noise or
>simply to attack and harass other people.  So there are limits to what
>one can say on the internet as well as in other media, and law
>enforcement agencies should enforce those limits.  I hope that Mr.
>Cassidy receive a long jail sentence, so he can have an opportunity to
>reflect on the effects of what is being posted on the internet on
>others and the free exchange of ideas next time he clicks on the
>"send" button.
>
>Wojtek