2.28.2006

Free Speech means unrestrained speech

This isn't on NOW, sorry to break the continuity.


So, first thing: a few definitions:

Free: About persons, not bound or subject to another as a slave to a master. Enjoying personal rights and liberty of action as a member of a society or state. Not subject to foreign dominion.

So free speech means free, without restraint. No one else can tell you what to say or not say. I only bring this up because of the recent speech of submission and surrender of liberty delivered by some random Danish minion. The most telling point was his quote "We Europeans have realized that we can say anything to Muslims and they do not feel bad as long as we don’t touch upon the Holy Prophet (peace be upon him). " This will not stand.

As soon as you place restrictions of any kind on free speech, it ceases to be free. Especially when it involves religion. No religion should be given special protection from the oh-so-dangerous free speech no matter how ignorant and barbaric some or most of it'sadherentss may be. I refuse to concede that ANYONE has a "right" not to be offended. THERE IS NO SUCH RIGHT. The fundamental rights are life, liberty and property. The government must protect these rights no matter how offensive someone is. There is no right for these animals to murder because someone said something mean about a long-dead nomad. Sorry guys, there's no pie(or virgins) in the sky for you or him. Tough noogies. Now, I'm out to exercise my right to free speech before some coward tries to take it from me.

P.S. In the South, if you try that rioting shit, we'll just shoot you. We can do that if you're a murderous, rioting, rapist dastardly barbarian. Bring it

- The Ideaman

5 Comments:

  • "I refuse to concede that ANYONE has a "right" not to be offended. THERE IS NO SUCH RIGHT."

    Shall we assume you apply that same principle to flag burners? Sinead O'Connor's torching of a picture of the Pope onstage? The art exhibit in New York which featured a Virgin Mary smeared with elephant feces? I hope so.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10:34 AM  

  • Great post!

    By Blogger Nightcrawler, at 6:46 PM  

  • Excellent post. Couldn't have said it better myself.

    Let me just say to Anon... Have we started any riots, killing sprees, or mass rapes in response to those things? No? Then STFU!

    By Blogger The Anti-Hippie, at 12:41 AM  

  • Impressive anger and insult, a-h, but somewhat beside the point.

    All of the actions I mentioned produced tremendous outrage and protest from the offended. Laws have been introduced to prevent flag burning, O'Connor was denounced and villified by Catholics around the world, and there were numerous attempts to shut down the exhibit as something that simply could not be tolerated.

    I was merely asking if the author applied the principle across the board, since he stated it so strongly. Because so often there is a double standard at work when one's own values are the ones being offended.

    Just a suggestion, a-h: the STFU does not bolster your argument; in fact, quite the opposite. But don't take offense.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 7:12 AM  

  • Now that I read my comment again, even I have to give you points on that last bit, Anon.

    By Blogger The Anti-Hippie, at 7:36 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home