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 (68136)	11/25/2002 7:45:47 PM
From: The Philosopher	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

I have no idea who Robert Barry is, but if he is indeed saying things like that without believing them, he is indeed dishonorable. He still has the legal right to say it, but he should self-censor that right. If he truly believed those things, it would be a tougher call. I hope you don't think that I have disagreed with what I take to be your basic proposition, that people can abuse the right of free speech, and that doing so is a moral, though not necessarily legal, wrong. I just want to be careful about three things. First, it's often unclear what is an abuse and what isn't. (Bull Connor sure thought the Selma marches were an abuse, but that sure didn't make them so.) Second, even though we may find certain abuses of free speech repugnant, we still have to defend the right of free speech to preserve it for those times we or people in whose causes we believe want to use it for uses other people may find repugnant. Third, the true test of free speech comes at the edges. The true proponent of free speech is the one who can say "that speech disgusts me. It appalls me. It is horrible. But still, I'm not prepared to censor that speech."