Straw man. One doesn't have to "speak in favour" of reprehensible speech in order to be against its suppression. Manny at least has to make the argument that such suppression has a beneficial effect. He has not done so. He then sets up a second straw man, by sliding into a discussion of who we should "invite into our homes".

As I have mentioned before the availability of pornography feeds the lust of the paedophiles and child abusers. Many still argue their right to watch perversion in private even though it obviously has a detrimental affect on society.

Author writes freedom of speech is invaluable but I will judge what is good and evil etc.

It's evil to let Islamist "terrorists" push their case but it's fine to have Bush declare war and deliver a sheer rain of bombs on innocent people, as well as "evil" people. And have 24/7 TV coverage of that war, including repetetive loops of mombs destroying target, hopefully, buildings and sites.

I am shocked but not awed and neither are those in Iraq now, the visitors that is.

Sick, both, my opinion.

What's the difference? Only you opinion of course. There is no firm right or wrong, in anything.

Another Islam tripe item. Badly done and porrly argued.

See this is where the problem lies:
The author, who i assume has seen the DVD and is in a position to judge it, is giving his opinion about it and why it should be banned. If it is now banned, all i have to go by for my own personal judgement on the matter, is this authors opinionated words about it. Hardly the bare facts. If i took the authors words as fact i would not want the DVD circulated either, but how do i know that the author is being factual, how do i know he is unbiased, how do know i can trust him and accept the dvd to be banned on his assessment, therefore denying me the chance to form my own judgement about it based on the actual facts - the DVD itself?
Censorship substitutes an individuals responsibility to make up their own mind about something, with some authorative body granted the power - often without their permission - to do it for them.
Now i would probably not want to see this DVD after reading what the author has written, but i do not want the choice to see the DVD taken away from me either.
Classification is fine because it is a system of recommendation and guidance. It does not sacrifice choice. Maybe a new label is needed, "Warning: inflammatory content" giving it a stronger rating.
The best way to counter destructive ideas and harmful speech is to show them for what they are, speak out loudly about it as the author is doing, while also providing consistent education and guidance on the social, good sense and sane ways of thinking and behaving. Only a very few opt for the destructive ideas, so why curtail the many for fear of the few?

I agree entirely with bushbasher. It's a straw man argument.

But there is a deeper issue here. Freedom of speech is the most fundamental freedom of them all. Because without free speech ALL the other freedoms vanish.

Unfortunately there are no free lunches. Anal cavities like Feiz Mohammed, as well as pornographers, will take advantage of free speech to publish their murderous male bovine excrement.

So can we stop the "bad" stuff while allowing the "good" stuff to be published?

Nope, we can't. Pass laws that rein in people like Feiz Mohammed and the usual gang of self-righteous multi culti groupies and their lawyers will use them inhibit frank discussion of everything from Islam to Zionism. It will become too risky to publish anything that may cause offence to anybody.

In practice the only way to ensure the free flow of ideas is to make their publication risk free. That means free of the risk of having to defend yourself in a lawsuit.

An exception might be incitement to violence NARROWLY DEFINED. Speech that EXPLICITLY directed people to harm or kill a specific individual or group could be banned under such a law.

So, to put it bluntly:

"Judaism is a false religion and its practitioners will burn in hell" would be allowed.*

"Kill Jews" would not.

* For the record, I do not subscribe to such a bizarre point of view. But I would defend the right of someone to say it.

No doubt depraved kiddie tamperers get their rocks off to a department store kids catalogue too. Better, ban that sort of advertising. Such rights of the normal folks to look thru those catalogues must be curtailed as it obviously has a detremental effect on society (whatever that is).

Its the old adage... dont throw the baby out with the bathe water.

Freedom comes with the burden of personal responsibility for what the individual does with that freedom. Unfortunately some cant handle it. If we then deprive the responsible masses of those freedoms then we dont have freedom.

Qualify freedoms at your own peril.

Because when you dont like the unfree world you end up living in you know who to congragulate.

Most folk cannot handle freedom, hemce their desire to control/limit it. Its easier to follow than lead.

Why we blame the speaker of words that someone elses uses as an excuse to validate their own motivation is beyond me. Maybe we should hold a person accountable for their actions.

If l told you to jump off a cliff, would you do it. If you do it, is that my fault.

"Sticks and stones...".