One cannot really "abuse" freedom of speech. Other than speech that fails the "clear and present danger" test established by the Supreme Court (a restriction with which I do not agree), the protections afforded in the Constitution to free speech are designed specifically to protect that speech which most people find repellent. One does not need to protect speech that most people find acceptable.
So, even though one may object to the spewings of the Westboro Baptist Church bunch, or the KKK, or the Nazis (all of whom, by the way, I find repellent), or whoever, our freedom is better protected by letting them spew then by trying to shut them up. The best way to combat any views one finds objectionable is to present articulate and well-reasoned counter-views. Attempts to stifle speech one finds objectionable tend not to work, and in fact can be counterproductive, lending a chachet of respectibility to what may otherwise be nothing but the rantings of an unbalanced mind.
2007-11-20 07:06:15
·
answer #1
·
answered by Jeffrey S 5
·
2⤊
0⤋
Well, Short Bus for sure.
2007-11-20 07:08:59
·
answer #2
·
answered by thegubmint 7
·
0⤊
0⤋