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.

Pastimes : The Boxing Ring Revived -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: The Philosopher who wrote (4715)	2/21/2003 3:09:06 PM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 7720

Yes, there is a difference, and one which I am prepared to honor in many circumstances, between disapproval and refusal to punish. In fact, the First Amendment is based upon such a distinction, insofar as we refuse to censor speech or press which we find objectionable, and in other ways uphold the rights of those with whom we may profoundly disagree. The difference, however, is not universally observable, but depends upon a rationale which says that, as a rule, legal interdiction would be worse than permission, and that whatever exceptions there may be must be narrowly drawn, preferably by the courts. With freedom of the press, for example, we as a society have decided that the benefit of full discussion of unpopular ideas outweighs the occasional mischief produced on the weak- minded, so that we look at issues from every angle and are more likely to arrive at the truth, as well as insuring that error does not hide and gain in mystique, but is exposed to the light of day. I do not see sufficient grounds to put assisted suicide into the class of things where interdiction would be worse than permission.