3 ms·
It would be a bad idea for reasons mentioned upthread. It would not be a bad idea because of the reasons you mention. You are saying "Let's give in to violence
by eterm 12y ago
It would be a bad idea for reasons mentioned upthread. It would not be a bad idea because of the reasons you mention.
You are saying "Let's give in to violence and intimidation". You are suggesting that free speech should not be exercised if there is any threat or violence. That is not free speech.
- peeters 12y ago> You are saying "Let's give in to violence and intimidation". It's not "giving in" when you would never do something like that in the first place (without the threat of violence). It's just continuing to not do it.
- RadioactiveMan 12y agoFree speech doesn't require antagonizing anyone. I don't advocate censoring ourselves out of fear, but I wouldn't defend sticking our tongues out at a bully, even if we're on the moral high ground. We would be better served by expressing ourselves in ways that promote understanding other cultures, not widening the divide between them.