re: #522 Obdicut

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.

You are right, I didn’t express my self as clearly as I should have. I meant that new laws expanding limits on freedom of speech can set a dangerous precedent, because they can be used as precedents to increase limits in other areas by other lawmakers with a different agenda. The Law of Unintended Consequences….