"I disagree with what you have to say but will fight to the death to protect your right to say it." ~ Evelyn Beatrice Hall on Voltaire
(In his A Book of French Quotations (1963), Norbert Guterman suggested that the probable source for the quotation was a line in a 6 February 1770 letter to M. le Riche: ``Monsieur l'abbé, I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write.'')
I don’t know the research but I give credit to the quotation research source:
http://www.classroomtools.com/voltaire.htm
2007-08-13 12:52:15 · 14 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Many ask why I asked this question. If Air America had the talent & message to dominate the air waves not a single liberal/progressive would complain. We all know this. However, because conservative radio has the talent & the right message it succeeds. It turns a profit & their target audience stays tuned in. In a free society this is freedom. To demand that the government regulate that freedom because “it’s not fair” is alarming to say the least. Many liberals/progressives support HR3302, The Fairness Doctrine.
2007-08-14 01:55:20 · update #1
I absolutely agree with it.
I'll even fight for a racist to be able to speak... but I'll probably put my podium up right next to his to tell people I think he's an idiot.
2007-08-13 12:55:47 · answer #1 · answered by gaelicspawn 5 · 5⤊ 1⤋
Absolutely
2007-08-13 19:56:24 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
I am not sure I will fight to the death but I agree with the sentiment. Why? And why only ask liberals/progressives?
2007-08-13 21:21:07 · answer #3 · answered by Sageandscholar 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes
2007-08-13 19:57:48 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Yes.
I detest the conservative agenda, but support their right to promote it, so long as they don't try to take away my rights to fight against them on certain issues with logic and reason, something they don't usually appeal to, instead relying on outdated quasi-morality and mythical dogma.
Also at issue is the hypocricy where they rail against issues in public, but in private are pill poppers, crack smokers, pot burners, adulterers, murderers, white-collar criminals, corrupt officials, molestors, wife-beaters, whore-mongers, park-circlers and glory-h**e pokers as soon as they hit the rest stop to get away (or go to, pardon the pun) from their fruitful multiplication.
I "detest" many other pseudo-religions, but it is their right to practice it, as long as they don't intrude on my rights to not practice it.
Say what you will, but not with your fists, knife, or gun. And don't legislate me out of my rights to keep these weapons in defense of my rights to not be like them. Liberals also believe in the 2nd ammendment broadly constructed.
If the sign says keep off the grass, that probably means not to dig under it either.
Many of our ideals get subverted because people do just that.
2007-08-13 20:13:27 · answer #5 · answered by Frindofo 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
although im not a liberal, i completely agree with that.
i dont support namblas or the christian coalitions message, but i fully support the right for them to stand for it.
2007-08-13 20:06:25 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Totally. There is nothing that needs protected more than our constitutional rights.
NO to the NWO...
2007-08-13 19:57:31 · answer #7 · answered by Chaoticfreedoms 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Sounds like a decent and well contemplated idea to me.
2007-08-13 20:12:25 · answer #8 · answered by avail_skillz 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Absolutely I agree with this statement, for it is the cornerstone of democracy.
To contrast this view, allow me to quote Dubya: "It's unacceptable to think..."
2007-08-13 20:15:29 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
I see nothing wrong with that statement. What is the catch ?
2007-08-13 19:55:40 · answer #10 · answered by planksheer 7 · 4⤊ 0⤋