Changes

Jump to navigation Jump to search
Line 20: Line 20:     
Doesn't this ''completely'' negate the entire "offensive art (which usually is an expression of a view) is not covered by freedom-of-speech" thing? I think you're using "express(ion)" a bit too loosely because you now use it both for "expression of a view" (covered) and "artistic expression" (not always covered). --[[User:DirkB|DirkB]] 20:42, 6 September 2008 (EDT)
 
Doesn't this ''completely'' negate the entire "offensive art (which usually is an expression of a view) is not covered by freedom-of-speech" thing? I think you're using "express(ion)" a bit too loosely because you now use it both for "expression of a view" (covered) and "artistic expression" (not always covered). --[[User:DirkB|DirkB]] 20:42, 6 September 2008 (EDT)
 +
 +
::It's an interesting essay Philip.  I think the first section can be summed up this way - freedom of speech has two important accepted, historical restrictions.  First, the nature of certain speech must be truthful when the consequence of falsehood can cause harm (libel, slander, falsely yelling "fire" when there is none).  Second, in a society based on laws, it is acceptable to discuss or even advocate actions that are illegal to promote change, but that does not make illegal acts legal, and inciting others to commit illegal acts can't be allowed either.
 +
 +
::Conservapedia can be thought of as an open wiki, but it's essentially a private organization with a low barrier to entry, and its leadership reserves the right to limit any speech that depends on using its resources.  I can go to Wikipedia or a street corner and say that CP is wrong about "X", but I can't expect to put that up as a post here and not be judged, blocked or even banned for it.  Speech here is only as free as the leadership condones it, and that is the essence of a private organization. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 21:50, 6 September 2008 (EDT)
1,516

edits

Navigation menu