Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: one_less who wrote (68071)	11/25/2002 6:17:25 PM
From: The Philosopher	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 82486

Nice words. But, frankly, pretty meaningless. When what you view as decency and free speech coexist, there's unlikely to be an issue. The concept of free speech is unnecessary. I keep coming back to this, but it seems not to stick: free speech only becomes an issue when it offends somebody. Almost nobody minds decent speech. That's not sticking up for free speech. It's only when decency IS sacrified that free speech suddenly becomes imperiled, and that is when its defenders are obligated to rally to its defense. For precisely that reason, as we're seeing here, the defense of free speech in theory is easy, but in practice it is seldom warmly welcomed. The ACLU lost a bunch of members, who were supposedly all free speech advocates, when they defended the right of Nazis to march in Skokie. For Nazis to march in Skokie was the height of indecency. But that is precisely why it became a vital free speech issue. You have it precisely backward. The defense of free speech is only meaningful when the glove of decency is cast aside.