4 ms·
What you're speaking of doesn't sound like a very useful form of "freedom of speech." It's the right to criticize key government officials and other powerful pe
by qq66 15y ago
What you're speaking of doesn't sound like a very useful form of "freedom of speech." It's the right to criticize key government officials and other powerful people which is MOST important, because they wield so much power -- it's much less important to be able to publicly criticize your crazy neighbor Bob.
- dm8 15y agoYou can criticize government officials. A form of protest can be anything from organized rally to famous Gandhian methodology of fasting. But society in general shuns anything that is below belt and dignity. Be it your neighbor or local political leader or your own uncle.
- Locke1689 15y agoI don't understand how people still don't get this: you never have to protect the speech you like. No one needs freedom of speech to protect the speech everyone likes. As Noam Chomsky said, If you believe in freedom of speech, you believe in freedom of speech for views you don't like. Stalin and Hitler, for example, were dictators in favor of freedom of speech for views they liked only. If you're in favor of freedom of speech, that means you're in favor of freedom of speech precisely for views you despise. National Socialist Party of America v. Village of Skokie paints the picture clearly: almost no one liked the Nazis or wanted them in Skokie, but that's precisely why their speech needs to be protected.