[ExI] intolerant minds, a different flavor
lcorbin at rawbw.com
Tue Apr 28 06:54:36 UTC 2009
Earlier, Mirco wrote
> [Lee wrote]
> > So some of our German colleagues were visiting us, and
> > at lunch I asked, "Can you explain why you favour
> > preventing free speech in this case?".
> Is it really free speech?
> In the case of holocaust deniers, they are negating
> a fact, not stating an opinion. It is like negating
> that a man was killed when there are witnesses, the
> corpse, the killer confession and many records of
> what happened. It is like telling lies in a trial.
One does not know they're intentionally lying. One
may believe quite differently from them, that's
about it. People often debate the record about
Now you write
> Il 27/04/2009 17.40, John K Clark ha scritto:
> > <painlord2k at libero.it> Wrote:
> > > Is it really free speech?
> > It's irrelevant today.
> It is relevant, because free speech must be
> tolerated but action must be not.
What's to keep the authorities from proscribing
anything they dislike, e.g., don't most Democrats
think that the Republican pundits are not being
accurate, and vice-versa?
> > In the age of the Internet, law or no law
> > you're not going to have much luck restricting
> > the flow of information.
> This depend on how much power and freedom the
> enemies of free speech have.
There aren't many places in the world where they
have that kind of power, not any more.
More information about the extropy-chat