| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| − | Free speech is generally considered to be the right of people to speak their mind, to give their opinion and to support the opinions of others.
| + | Madre de Dios! Es el Pollo Diablo! |
| | | | |
| − | Opponents to free speech - or restrictions on it - are often based on the principle of "clear and present danger". If you shout "Fire!" in a crowded theater, you are expressing your opinion that there is a fire, with the obvious implication that people should begin evacuating. If there is no fire - and you ought to know better - then you have created such a public nuisance that no one would say the state was suppressing your rights by punishing you for causing a stampede.
| + | !Sí He dejado en libertad los prisioneros y ahora vengo por ti! |
| − | | |
| − | Likewise, there are provisions against [[inciting a riot]]. It's one thing to vilify a government official, or to badmouth a social, political or religious group. But to urge violent action against them directly - or even to stir people up, to agitate them so much that they run amok - this is considered criminal.
| |
| − | | |
| − | In both these cases, it's not the idea itself, but the timing and urgency of the expression. I can still say (calmly, later) that I thought the theater was on fire - or that I think a certain group is bad.
| |
| − | | |
| − | But new provisions of [[hate speech]] codes and laws seek to suppress ''any'' statement against certain "protected groups". This is censorship of [[pure speech]] and should be stopped.
| |
| − | | |
| − | Ted Kennedy's "Matthew Shepard" bill looks ...
| |
| − | | |
| − | [[Category:Essays]]
| |