--- On Wed, 6/18/08, Denys Beauchemin <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> Can you explain to me what is the biggest fallacy in this
> statement of yours:
> 
> " So in this argument, the only people who are not
> bothered by restrictions on the freedom of speech are those who do not
> intend to offend anyone."

Denys,

It is called sarcasm, as in the analogy I gave before hand, "If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear".

The problem with this argument is that is an either or option.  Either you are innocent, and have nothing to hide or you are guilty and should be exposed.

What's the problem?  Mainly abuse of power, there is a clear chance you are innocent, and yet still persecuted.  Remember the burden of proof is on the government, that's what guilty until proven innocent is all about. Privacy is what protects that.

As for the freedom of speech, the most "tolerant" people in our society are the ones who wish to impose restrictions.  Some people (liberals) think that people should be charged for "hate" crimes and crimes of "thought".

Those more clearly thinking individuals (libertarians, because republicans are incapable of clear thought), realize that the "freedom of speech" concept was meant to protect "unpopular" speech, and even "offensive" speech.

Denys, you a clearly not hindered by logic.

-Craig

* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
* etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *