Whom thinks that free speech should be defined, and if not there should be riots by the abused innocents?

Question

We don't get much klan around here. But we do get visitors making the rules.

By the way, i don't know where 'whom' came from lol

Answer 1

Is Red Ken is unknown to you? How about, 'Transient Servitude', by R.D. Vogel? 'Harry Chang - A Seminal Theorist of Racial Justice', by B. Wing? 'Resource Wars', by W.K. Tabb?
Anybody? Anybody?

Answer 2

Free speech, by definition, can't be defined. The belief that every action in our lives can be defined, regulated and subject to legal sanction, is just another silly liberal illusion. Something like 'Human Rights' legislation for example, which appears to me to protect all the feckless and morally weak of the world and to penalise the hard working majority. Free speech is being able to say anything that is basically true, however much somebody may feel hurt by it. There are sufficient, well tried and tested, laws of libel and slander for those who believe that what may have been said was not true. Abused innocents? I don't think there should be any of those over the age of 18 in this day and age; if there are, they are either putting on an act for monetary gain or living in La-La land. As a boy I was brought -up on the old Anglo- Saxon maxim, 'sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me'. Still sounds good to me today.
Dear Lord, please deliver us from these wretched liberals and give us back our 'conservative democracy'. If it's not to be, Lord I'll settle for the Fascists or the Socialists, at least they were up-front with their repressions, they never dressed them up as benefits.
Riots by the abused innocents? That's another contradiction in terms.

Answer 3

Freedom of speech is an American constitutional thing isn't it? It isn't an enshrined right anywhere else that I know of. Mean that the right to say anything could bring charges of inciting racial hatred, sedition or treason in some places.

But i do agree with you. Nothing worse than some bullying idiot trying to keep people quiet. But if theres gonna be direct action or riots they should have purpose and aim.

After all if you are gonna break eggs you may as well make an omelet.

Answer 4

Freedom of speech should be complete, but with freedom comes responsibility. If someone says something that offends you, then stop listening, that is your right. Don't aggrevate the situation bu pushing your opposing view on them.

On the other hand you have to think about when freedom of speech could cause legitimate danger. Like Hitler's rallies. His speeches convinced his country to go to war with the world.

This is a tricky one but I think the solution is for people to be more tolerant and to stop and think about what they are hearing.

Answer 5

There's a time and place for Freedom of Speech. If a person from the KKK wants to shout racial slurs at a black man then so be it. If that black man walks up to the KKK member and smacks the salt off that cracker then so be it. I believe that everyone should have freedom of speech but, should have to face the consequences for using it.

Answer 6

freedom of speech should be just as it says on the tin! everyone can state their own opinons but have no right to push them on to others! And thats that everyone else is wrong and iam right OK!

blw Whom???? lol

Answer 7

I'm retiring to the Bull Fighting profession lol

Answer 8

No riots. Just have freedom marches.. Seriously, riots makes things worse..

Answer 9

i predict a riot

Answer 10

I think that it should be defined