> Add to that shot about free speech being an absolutist position and it is hard defend 'free speech' position. If I say I'm against torture in all circumstanc

> Add to that shot about free speech being an absolutist position and it is hard defend 'free speech' position. If I say I'm against torture in all circumstances then is that an absolutist position? Do things need to be "carefully balanced" because "everything is fluid" with regards to torture? The reason freedom of speech appears absolutist to those who wish to impinge on others' speech is that it denies them that power, either by dint of reason or (hopefully) by dint of law. It is up to the individual what and when and to whom they speak or listen. The power rests with the individual. To impinge on that is to take away that power and give more to someone else - but on what basis? That someone else doesn't like the content of their speech, or even worse doesn't like that person. Deep. Maybe we should try that for torture?