re: #511 charles_martel

No, of course, there must be some limits on freedom of speech. But it is a fine line to walk, and I believe we must be vigilant about any changes to those freedoms.

If you say:

But, that being said, any laws that abridge freedom of speech in one area, no matter how altruistic they are, set dangerous precedents for freedom of speech in other areas.

You can’t then say that there should be some limits on freedom of speech, without accusing yourself of setting dangerous precedents.

It seems to me that all you’re really saying is that one can go to far in regulating free speech, which no one would ever argue about. yes, it’s a thin line, and where that line is drawn is what is argued about. Nobody involved in the free speech debate is an absolutist, except for a few anarchists and religious zealots.