Quote:
Originally posted by hermit22
Just my 2 cents. It pissed me off when I saw that vitriolic debate spill over into here.
|
Well, I'm not the one dispensing vitriol.
My original point was that some folks, who express outrage over an idea or speech only being criminalized when it comes from a certain person or class of people, seem to be quite comfortable with speech being suppressed for its *authorship* rather than its *content* when speakers *they* don't like are involved. What holds itself out as a "principled stand in support of the downtrodden" is revealed as being just "hurray for our side".
So then in reaction we've had page upon page of foul-mouthed flamage--apparently the new writing style in some circles--about how disruptive *I've* been. I think it's all just designed to distract from that original point.
These issues are *not* abstract and distant, they happen to us personally every day. This is what's at the core when a country originally founded on personal freedom is faced with the challenge of deadly enemies within its borders. (Will "the terrorists alrady have won" by causing us to "give up some freedom for a little safety"?) Sometimes it's easier to adhere to a principle than at other times. Those other times are the measure of how much you really believe in the principle...or keep it just for show.