sami: (diotima)
Sami ([personal profile] sami) wrote2011-10-09 08:18 am
Entry tags:

Hypocrisy and free speech, etc

This is one of the better comments on the Andrew-Bolt-is-a-racist-but-zomg-FREE-SPEECH thing I've seen yet, because in no small part it makes the point that the whole thing was not about free speech. And that freedom of speech is not an absolute, and shouldn't be, and no-one sane thinks it should be.

The question about "freedom of speech" is not about whether it should be limited - it should. The question is about where those limits are placed.

Note to Americans, before you reply to tell me about how I clearly favour Orwellian dictatorship or how America the Beautiful totally doesn't limit freedom of speech: Yes, it bloody does. To use the age-old example, your laws regarding freedom of speech do not give you freedom to shout "Fire!" in a crowded theatre. America's legal provisions limiting freedom of speech are woefully inadequate, but they're there.

(Man, those first two amendments to the U.S. Constitution are terrible. "So, we're going to have a country in which there's no legal way to limit hate speech or gun ownership? There is NO POSSIBLE WAY this could go wrong. I'm sure that it's just coincidence that approximately 16% of our heads of state get murdered in office, as of 9/10/11.")
soranokumo: (Utena - Shoujo Kakumei Utena - Gate)

[personal profile] soranokumo 2011-10-10 02:50 am (UTC)(link)
I agree that we're in a mess right now, and we've been in a mess for awhile. And no, the US isn't perfect, and I believe I said straight off the bat that we have problems.

I'll disagree with you about the Constitution, though, in how you used it in your initial post, which is what I took issue with.