12-31-2007, 05:22 AM
> True, but i think we can (mostly) agree that there are certain forms of speech which should
> either be limited or at the very least, moderated.
No. I don't agree.
I don't think that there's any form of speech that should be per se outlawed or moderated (censored).
There are rare circumstances where speech might be used to incite inappropriate violence where I would tentatively be in favor of criminal punishment.
There are circumstances where I'd agree that if a person knowingly lied in a public forum then that person should be held accountable for real damages in civil court.
But to ban or "moderate" all of the forms of speech that might be interpreted as criminal incitement or worthy of civil damages is repugnant to me and I believe that it is contrary to the needs of the citizenry both for civil society and representative government.
More to the point: You seem to be saying that stating a hurtful opinion publicly under the veil of anonymity should be outlawed. I can't agree with that.
> either be limited or at the very least, moderated.
No. I don't agree.
I don't think that there's any form of speech that should be per se outlawed or moderated (censored).
There are rare circumstances where speech might be used to incite inappropriate violence where I would tentatively be in favor of criminal punishment.
There are circumstances where I'd agree that if a person knowingly lied in a public forum then that person should be held accountable for real damages in civil court.
But to ban or "moderate" all of the forms of speech that might be interpreted as criminal incitement or worthy of civil damages is repugnant to me and I believe that it is contrary to the needs of the citizenry both for civil society and representative government.
More to the point: You seem to be saying that stating a hurtful opinion publicly under the veil of anonymity should be outlawed. I can't agree with that.