"it isn't about free speech, but common decency"
Chris is just too transparent. I don't believe telling the truth has any meaning for him, whatsoever. He says whatever is expedient, and gives no indication of conscience.
We are to believe that he does not respond with hurt and anger to one who has trashed someone he deeply loved (or so he claims) because he feels that because they had a right to their free speech it follows in some weird way that he ought not to exercise his free speech to take a moral stanch or to express some loyalty to the truth about his loved one.
We are to suppose that if Neo or myself or you were to call his wife and children a barrage of filthy names and insinuations and express our contempt for them, that he would very calmly inform the thread that he takes no offense because our free speech to speak maliciously is more meaningful to him than his free speech to defend the dignity and the character of people he loves.
I am thoroughly disgusted with the dog and pony show that these two are putting on. People who attack the dead are contemptible; and people who pretend a love which they do not have are more so.
I did not know Monica, but I am sorry that her friends such as yourself, JLA, and Neo (edit: and I left out Neemmy and apparently a great number of others, but they all know who they are)... (and, of course her family if they read these threads) must endure such inhuman trash talk. And to hear someone say he loves somebody, and then start yapping about free speech while her memory is being desecrated--well,it is just too phoney, and too too much to stomach. |
