Samsung,

It is meaningless to label free speech, or anything else, anarchy. I don’t think free speech is anarchic but what if it is? What do you mean by anarchy IN THIS CONTEXT anyway?

Your example of accusing someone of wife-beating is besides the point. There are laws against slander and libel.

Here is a real question:

Can I say that I think your religious beliefs asinine?

Not that you are asinine; but that you have certain beliefs that are asinine.

Until recently the answer has always been yes. In fact the right to express yourself freely, without fear of reprisals, about other people's beliefs, opinions, faiths and utterances has always been considered the whole POINT of allowing free speech.

Foxy,

I think you are confusing a personal code of conduct for what should, or should not, be illegal. If I were a newspaper editor I would not have commissioned the Muhammad cartoons. But I would resist any efforts to make publishing Muhammad cartoons illegal.

Hagannah Bet,

The only reason someone would want to access a website about making nerve gas is in order to kill. Anyone putting such information on the web could be considered part of a conspiracy to murder.

That being said, I doubt anyone who wanted to make nerve gas would have much difficulty getting the relevant information

Steel, I did NOT say free speech is anarchy. Free speech is NOT anarchy and **THAT'S** my point. I'm afraid you're not reading my posts properly, if at all.

It goes to "definition", and that's why I prefixed the term free speech with "total" when describing anarchy...... that is, the freedom to say or do or write ANYTHING. We do NOT have the freedom to say, do or write ANYTHING. The freedom to say, do or write ANYTHING is NOT freedom (except for the person doing the saying, the act or the writing). This is NOT freedom because it can so easily impinge on the freedom of others who hold different opinions, politics, religions, lifestyles etc etc. You don't seem to grasp this. We have to work within a framework of laws in order to have an orderly society. Those laws apply to just about everything, INCLUDING WHAT YOU SAY OR WRITE.

As I have written previously in this topic: I support free speech 100%; I am anti anarchy 100% (read the last sentence of my post on page 7).

Understanding the difference between anarchy and freedom is vital to this type of discussion.

You wrote that I described free speech as "calamitous" (you used inverted commas). Could you please quote me where I specifically said free speech was "calamitous". You know you can't. Why? Because I didn't say that free speech was "calamitous".

I have repeatedly supported free speech. Unfortunately, some people don't understand what "free speech" is. They erroneously believe free speech is the right to say anything about anyone without any responsibility and without any recourse being taken against them. That's ANARCHY. We CAN'T just say, do or write whatever we wish regardless of the consequences: I repeat, that's anarchy, NOT freedom.

Understand the difference!

Steven, free speech is **NOT** anarchy: That's the basis of my posts.

Freedom is the opposite of anarchy.

Saying, acting or writing merely as one wishes is NOT exercising freedom.

Freedom carries responsibilities beyond the self gratification of one's will.

Freedom can often encompass NOT doing as one wishes: For example, I do NOT have the freedom to assault you. Why? Because that impinges on YOUR freedom to live in safety.

I hope you now better understand my points regarding freedom and anarchy.

You lost me. I can't follow your reasoning because it sounds completely backwards to me and immediately begins to sound like a regime. None of the examples submitted by the op match your descriptions here, so one can only guess at what the you think you are talking about.

I think this is a great example of how our society 'educates' it's populace to believe in authoritarian principles (such as convincing people to believe free speech is actually harmful and must be significantly controlled).

Samsung offered a variation on the old and valid "Yelling fire in a crowded theatre” scenario. It has been determined by legal practicality is support of the “common good’ under these circumstances free speech has should have limitations (Steven and Steel.) Hence in reality the debate is over which is the outcome of Absolute freedom of speech.

Do we assume that people will honour the implicit respect for other's rights as championed by SAMSUNG? Or argument of Steel and Steven assume that people will follow their selfish urges and ignore the rights of others (anarchy).

In essence Samsung is right in terms of purity of logic but I fear Steel and Steven is offering the more pragmatic probability.

Samsung,
Just for my edification. I would like to hear you apply your principles to some specific cases.

For example, why we should/shouldn’t be able to view the Muhammad cartoons or some of the other -art- forms originally nominated by Steven (?)