Evil

[Occhidiangela]

It's a wrong way to do.
Insulting,slandering or incitement to murder/racial hatred may do 'the victim' harm,which is against your principles of freedom;for instance,a racist group encourages murders against a category of people or  encourages a riot ;then there are several riots,resulting with the destruction of private goods and/or a few murders;now,who would be responsible for this situation? are they only responsible those who 'did' or those who 'did' plus those of the racist group who spread the word? In the USA , I guess that only those who committed the crimes would be guilty whereas in the European Union,those who 'did' plus those who encouraged would be punished.You see,freedom should be limited not only for acts but also for speech;according to me,100 % freedom of speech is a major flaw of the US constitution.Too much freedom may kill freedom,and your freedom of speech could cause civil wars in America.
There is a proverb of Confucius about the limits of freedom between you and me,which sums up what I think about it,but I don't remember ...
[right][snapback]60689[/snapback][/right]

I personally find that American Libel and Slander laws could use a bit of tuning. I was under the imperssion that freedom of speech assumed (maybe I am off base here) that what was protected was speaking The Truth.

Falsehood should not, I suggest, be defended as free speech, hance libel and slander laws. I think the Brits are a bit better than us on that detail.

Why should a lie be protected speech? A lie is a seed of Evil, hell, it has three letters in common with it!!! :unsure:

Occhi