but for some reason, you can't understand that he's pointing out the hypocracy of those who want to censor political speech, while trumpeting their own supposed absolute belief in free speech. when political speech is supposed to be the most sacrosanct of all. he's saying that if you're not going to draw lines, as these people don't want to, then why are you then going to try to censor political speech?

no society has complete freedom of speech. Nobody thinks that it should. In some instances, supposedfreedom of speech can do more harm than good. It's all about some freedoms being worth fighting for int heir opinions. Just because they might not support it in others, it doesn't meant hat their arguments are less valid. I just say....some freedoms are worth fighting for. It's where you draw the line. If you passionately believe in freedom of speech in one instance, does that mean that you cannot argue for it because you don't support it in another instance?


wads

Onwards the Aussie Spam Invasion!
TwoWongs rocks my world
campaiging for vitamin S
Quai Master is my muffin