Make free speech illegal and extremists will no longer try and defend their views in open debate; they will go straight to bombs and guns. It's much better to have one's enemies out in the open than behind closed doors. Let people say whatever they want, as long as the people who disagree with them have the same opportunities. That's how minds are changed.

And I sincerely hope there are some people who find MY views offensive; if there aren't then I'm not trying hard enough.

I'm with Clownfish on this.

Once you start applying value judgments on one person's free speech as compared to another's, you are in the realm of control, not liberty.

Using some form of abstract concept, such as "society", isn't going to help either. That's just a word that is used by people who wish to bend others to their will.

Suppressing voices that express views that a group finds "vile" is not going to stop those voices. It will only serve to make them less visible, which is a bad thing (as in: know your enemy). It would also provide the previously-vilified withan artificial sense of security.

They're still out there, and they're still out to get you. It's just that we can't see them any more.

There are a lot of things in life that are less than sweet-smellingly pleasant to everyone on the planet. Facing up to them rather than pretending they don't exist is a sign of maturity.

Bushbasher - I must have expressed myself clumsily. Was on the way to class so didn't have time for an edit.

I did say that I could see both sides of the argument: both the article's and Mac's.

Didn't in any way mean to insinuate that any more damn laws should be passed...we already find our lives bounden and our freedoms limited by a plethora of ridiculous laws.

You might know that, when I'm not wearing my Academic hat, I'm wearing my journalistic one and so the right to freedom of speech is one of the basic tenets of my life.

What I find objectionable are those who misuse this freedom. As in anything, those who misuse any freedoms are the ones who are responsible for the curtailment thereof.

I am not in the least precious, but I did mean that last sentence: "We are becoming a society of bullies: not solely in the physical sense; but where the most outspokenly offensive, loudest abuser, regardless of logic or truth, wins the day." THAT is what I was objecting to.

Freedom of Speech gives people the right to express their views, ideas and opinions. Those who disagree with this expression also have the right to voice their opinion. Being "punished" with personal villification, abuse, belittlement and/or humiliation effectively quashes opposition. Such behaviour thus becomes a bullying tactic which effectively curbs an opponents own freedom.

I find this anathema.

Oh ... gimme a break.

This article is only masquerading as an article about hate speech versus freedom of expression. It's real agenda is to keep us firmly in Israel's corner as the tensions inexorably mount towards the almost certain endgame of war with Iran (oh ... provoked by Iran, of course).

What's important is to slowly break-down the resistance of us thoroughly war-weary Westerners to the very real prospect of a nuclear confrontation between the two countries.

It won't be that hard a task. After all, we Westerners are real pushovers. We all fell for the Iraq WMD routine, and before that the Kosovo genocide routine. Now we're being buttered up with the Iran hates Israel routine.

Of course, we have nothing against the Iranian people, mind you ... who will bear the brunt of it all - along with the Israeli population. Just those Israel-hating, Holocaust-denying, Sharia Law thumping, civilisation-clashing mad mullahs who we all know are just desperate to get their hands on nuclear wea-, I mean ... energy

Bit late to get rid of global hatred with all the atomic artillery, but here goes.

Under Online Opinion it seems hopeless to try to find a Middle Road which supports any historical thesis like Sharing the Blame.

Does this mean that our OLO chiefs have their own theories of the way our arguments should be focusing?

Not that we are in love with Russia, but under a recent study we found that it has been modern Russia which has been the most successful in peacefully coming to terms with Islamics as regards religion.

To be sure under the Soviets portions of Greater Russia were able to exist comparatively peacefully without politically pushing the superiority of Western based religions against those based non Western.

Not to lose any respect for Christianity while backing the above argument, but mainly to express that trying to maintain the terrible Old Testament tale doing away with the unbelievers of the Promised Land sounds much too much like Nazism.

Us bush schoolkids years ago were so excited wondering in what way the evil ones were put to death?

There is a belief among historians, in fact, that if the boy Jesus is true, while he was in Egypt with his mother, he was more likely to have been influenced by Hellenistic wise men from the Great Library of Alexandria than by those normally around him still supporting the Old Testament.

Looks like the Sermon on the Mount may still have the best reasoning for a nicer world, at any rate.

Cheers, BB, WA.

SFJ,

You cynic! I agree, we've all seen these transparent attempts at gathering sympathy previously, far too often.

Don't you feel compassion for poor defenceless Israel surrounded by ferocious Palestinians armed to the teeth with, um, rocks and firework rockets. All Israel has to "defend itself" is billions of dollars worth of the latest products of the US arms industry.

I'm not surprised the Iranians are frightened of Israel given that country's aggressive policies.

We should let the Zionists fight their own wars,with their own young men and women,not ours. I say good luck to any local supporters of Israel who are desperate to provoke a war with Iran, join the IDF yourselves and stop attempting to transform a colonial war into a crusade. We didn't all fall for the WMD propaganda, by the way.