| | Interesting, well-written article, Jonathan. I think the case of Bridget Bardot, the French actress, is an example of what you refer to, in that she is being harassed legally under laws against racism for speaking out about the Muslimization of France. Here, I sense the intent is support the multicultural agenda, and silence all criticism of any type of culture.
However, free speech in regards to political liberty means the advancement of life, and not the destruction of life. Calling for black slavery or another holocaust is a negation of life. Would you support the right of a man to advocate killing you, and destroying your family? Would you support a man that wanted to enslave you? And if you did, wouldn't that implicate you in your own destruction?
Also, free speech and slanderous speech are two different things. In a rational society, libel laws would be clearly defined so as to afford the slandered to easily prove his or her case, and financially damage the slanderer. I remember a Civil Rights organization in the South using the courts to heavily damage the KKK.
In other words, if a group asserted that Jewish doctors were infecting the black population with AIDs they would be open to extreme financial damage through the courts.
By making individuals and groups responsible for what they say, through the courts, one would be able to refrain from censorship but at the same time, strike back at groups that thrive on slander.
Alan Tucker
|
|
