"Freedom of Speech" means you can say whatever you want, however, it doesn't mean that you are exempt from the repercussions of what you say. You still must take personal responsibility for the freedom you take.
If you are one of those who believes that "Freedom of Speech" should be absolute, think about these situations:
Would you protect someone who is distributing child pornography? They have the freedom to distribute any information they choose to. It would be an infringement on their rights to free speech if they were to be arrested.
Would you protect someone who gets up in front of a crowd and starts advocating the extermination of anyone with red hair? Or a person who hands out leaflets advocating killing women? They're simply expressing their views.
I realize that these examples are hyperoble. No one in their right mind would defend anyone doing such things, but how about a bit more realistic situation. In my home town during the last city election, one of the people running for a spot on city council made an appearance at a local high school, and in front of a gymnasium full of young teenagers he got up and said that all gays should be exterminated because they are an abomination. This man is now in jail (might I add, where he should be) for promoting hate. This has nothing to do with disagreeing with another person's point of view. It has everything to do with promoting hate, or illegal actions.
The whole point of free speech is to prevent the persecution of individuals and groups for their beliefs, but at the same time those beliefs cannot contradict the existing laws. You're not going to be set free just because you claim that you were exercising your rights to free speech if what you are saying is illegal, or harmful to another person or group.
Slashdot Mirror
"Freedom of Speech" means you can say whatever you want, however, it doesn't mean that you are exempt from the repercussions of what you say. You still must take personal responsibility for the freedom you take.
If you are one of those who believes that "Freedom of Speech" should be absolute, think about these situations:
Would you protect someone who is distributing child pornography? They have the freedom to distribute any information they choose to. It would be an infringement on their rights to free speech if they were to be arrested.
Would you protect someone who gets up in front of a crowd and starts advocating the extermination of anyone with red hair? Or a person who hands out leaflets advocating killing women? They're simply expressing their views.
I realize that these examples are hyperoble. No one in their right mind would defend anyone doing such things, but how about a bit more realistic situation. In my home town during the last city election, one of the people running for a spot on city council made an appearance at a local high school, and in front of a gymnasium full of young teenagers he got up and said that all gays should be exterminated because they are an abomination. This man is now in jail (might I add, where he should be) for promoting hate. This has nothing to do with disagreeing with another person's point of view. It has everything to do with promoting hate, or illegal actions.
The whole point of free speech is to prevent the persecution of individuals and groups for their beliefs, but at the same time those beliefs cannot contradict the existing laws. You're not going to be set free just because you claim that you were exercising your rights to free speech if what you are saying is illegal, or harmful to another person or group.