Yes, it is being a cunt, but they should have the right
to make their point. They are being denied that right and we are being denied the right to hear and disagree (or agree) with them. Nanny much?
Free speech means what it says. You may not like it but you should allow it - go and argue if you disagree. If you must limit it then I guess incitement to violence might be a line.
(
Mod Edit, Thu 19 Feb 2009, 19:46,
Reply)
My opinion is
if they made their point in a neutral manner, that is to say they just say it somewhere and if I'm looking for it I can find it, then that's okay.
If they actively go and act in an aggressive or potentially offensive manner at another person's funeral or some gay-marriage thing, etc. then their (teh gheys) freedoms are at risk from crazy people.
Yes, airing one's opinion in a 'neutral' manner does mean less publicity for them, but psst, that's half the point.
(, Thu 19 Feb 2009, 20:12, Reply)
exactly
I know it's dangerous to suggest 'common sense' prevail over universally applied law. But in this case, they're the naughty children in the corner who disrupt the class for everyone else. Out they go. Simple as.
(
thiswasmyclone, Thu 19 Feb 2009, 21:32,
Reply)
Ah, the old "it's offensive" argument.
Grow up you twit. Offended yet? Who cares? Free speech is more important than you being offended and if you don't see that, you deserve what we will, very likely, end up with.
(
Mod Edit, Thu 19 Feb 2009, 22:05,
Reply)
Who makes the definition?
Because they control what is and what is not free speech. I don't trust anybody that much - do you?
(
Mod Edit, Fri 20 Feb 2009, 17:40,
Reply)
i don't think inciting murder comes under the same sort of rights system.
(
Sir Sand GOBLIN ^popular page dis, Thu 19 Feb 2009, 20:15,
Reply)