On 9/11/16 10:59 PM, Nadine Earnshaw wrote:


"True free speech demands that you allow horrible small minded idiots the right to say vile things in public so that all unpopular but valid opinions can be debated and society can grow." 

No I don't agree with you. Sorry but you dont get to define what free speech is.

It is already well defined and extremely well argued:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exceptions
http://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/educational-resources/about-educational-outreach/activity-resources/what-does

A reasonable history of free speech:
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2006/feb/05/religion.news


In 18c we arent talking about what is unpopular but what is public vilification. There is a difference between debate and personal attacks.
Personal attacks whether physical or verbal are not acceptable and are criminal in civilized society.

How would you know whether people have outgrown their prejudices if it is illegal for them to illustrate them?  You would rather that they stew and scheme (in the American meaning) in private?


Free speech like guns can hurt when in the wrong hands, it is not something that hatefull fwits can hide behind.

Some hurts should be confronted rather than outlawed.


sdw