To: zzpat who wrote (1047128 ) 1/9/2018 1:00:02 PM From: RetiredNow Read Replies (1) | Respond to LOL. I didn't say that and you know it. First of all, child rape is an action, not a speech. We have been talking about Freedom of Speech. Child rape is not only abhorrent, unethical, and a sin, it is also illegal and unconstitutional in this country. I am categorically against that, especially as practiced routinely by Muslims, who believe it is ok for children to marry as young as the age of 9. Second, getting back to the free speech discussion, you've shown no proof that Y. is a proponent of child rape. So you are making a giant leap of logic, which demonstrates your inability to think properly and reason normally. But even if you did provide that proof, which would not surprise me in the least, because I find Y. repellant, that does not mean Y. was planning to speak about child rape at Berkeley. You are now becoming a proponent of banning a speaker for what he MAY say, rather than what he INTENDS to say. That's a whole new level of censorship that is simply not consistent with 230 years of common law and Constitutional law in this country. In fact, from what I have seen Y. speaks about pretty mainstream conservative topics that liberals and progressives disagree with. Admittedly, I've only watched one speech of his on youtube and he never said anything about child rape, but rather he spent most of his time systematically destroying the positions of liberals and progressives. I found some of the things he said funny and others nonsensical. Overall, I found him to be snide, arrogant, narcissistic, and generally repellant. In short, he's a shock jock. But his speech is protected under our laws. Protection of free speech is worth it in the long run, even if we have to listen to shock jocks and nonsense along the way. Censorship leads to tyranny. I'll choose freedom every day over tyranny.
