If we don't believe in freedom of expression for people we despise...?

Question

does that mean we don't believe in it at all.

Answer 1

Yes and the same goes for freedom of speech We are all different and have differing opinions but that does not make you a "baby killer", "Nazi", "Communist", etc.. because I don't agree. You are correct, we must respect others freedom of expression even if we disagree (except for the trolls and clones on answers)

Answer 2

True.

Freedom is no longer free when it is limited or controlled to benefit one country or group of people.

However, we have to be careful here when defining what freedom of expression can be, since suicide bombings and airplane hijackings and the like should not be allowed no matter what, because the safety and freedom of one group of people cannot be allowed to be sacrificed for the freedom of expression of another group of people.

In sum, freedom is not the same as license, and all freedoms are most inclusive when regulated by virtue, not just tolerance.

Answer 3

I would say no.

It would matter upon on why someone is despised such as killing millions with nukes, or something extreme

but if you mean as if someone does not agree with me, and i don't let them finish their freedom of expression, then yes, that means we do not believe in freedom of expression

i think there are no universal laws, and i also think there is never anything set in stone

Answer 4

specific. i do no longer like it, despite the fact that this is mandatory for various motives. Wounds heal in sunlight and fester interior the lifeless of evening. Racism persists because of the fact those with valid lawsuits with regard to the chosen suggestions have been silenced alongside with the haters. very much of vengance for that's being taken interior certainly one of those silent obstructionism. as a result the subject keeps. Shoot the messenger and you do no longer hear the information. various problems get larger once you do no longer act on them, because of the fact the warnings have been squelched. threat would not pass away basically via being skipped over. And if somebody has a greivance, it must be in many situations going on at the same time as there remains time for Justice, somewhat than revenge. loose Speech keeps the Peace. people who're talking, even while they are screaming hateful epithets, are not pulling triggers. this is oftentimes much less complicated to handle even the main unreasonable human beings in case you know the place they are coming from. Holocaust Deniers particularly fall into this type. while they communicate up, you know who they are and what they are. If saved silent, they could benefit skill. in certainty, censorship made the denial of the Holocaust available. If Zionists hadn't worked so tricky to do away with the memory of the Gentile victims, there could be no foundation on which to question the killing of the Jews. loose Speech upholds the regulation. a criminal offense isn't any much less a criminal offense for being effectively lined up. And a regulation is not extra in straightforward terms for tries to suppress petitions for redress of greivance, as Drug regulation supporters have so effectively executed.

Answer 5

Without allowing all sides to express their opinions there is no freedom of expression. Yahoo Answers is sometimes guilty of that.

Answer 6

Yes, unless you believe in "selective" freedom of expression.

Answer 7

Of coures it does. True freedom includes the freedom of your ideological opponents.

Answer 8

Yes.

Answer 9

No
Red speech is OK it that Blue speech that need to be corrected.

Why do you think teachers correct papers with Red ink.

Go big Red Go

Answer 10

I'm beginning to think sincerity is an outdated way of life... shame.