samsung>"I find that some people are all for total freedom....UNTIL.... they're personally and directly confronted with something they find deeply and irreconcilably offensive. Then it's, "I'm still for freedom, but........."."

The problem is, this is so subjective that eventually the whole country is speechless, or voiceless. "An eye for and eye makes the whole world blind" Similarly a "voice for a voice" makes the whole world voiceless. That is a great loss to humanity and culture in my opinion.

Steel I've read your post a few times, but unfortunately I can't quite make sense of it. Could you please expand on your comments so that I can understand exactly what you're saying. Thank you.

Regarding your first sentence: I wrote that it only applies to "some" people. I find it impossible to see how this makes "the whole country speechless, or voiceless" as you wrote (unless everybody in the country found everything in existence offensive). Maybe I'm misunderstanding your meaning.

You also said 'true' free speech is "ANARCHY, which is the OPPOSITE of freedom"

I let it pass, but it sounds a whole lot like "FREEDOM is SLAVERY" doesn't it? Are you familiar with that phrase?

No, I haven't heard that saying.

Total free speech, and total freedom, IS anarchy. To act *ONLY* as you choose, regardless of the impact, is NOT freedom for everyone, it is only freedom for *YOU*. You therefore become an ANARCHIST, acting only on *YOUR* interpretations of right and wrong or whatever.

Do I have the "free right" to rob you and assault you? No, I DON'T have that freedom. Do I have the "free right" to say you bash your wife when you have never done that? No. In other words I am NOT free to act as I may choose...and that's the way it should be. Total freedom IS anarchy!

The fact is that freedom is NOT the right to say, write and do as one chooses. *FREEDOM* is a much, much deeper, broader and far reaching right than that rather selfish and shallow definition.

I'm still waiting for an "interpretation" of your other post. I've just read it again, and it's meaning still totally escapes me. Please enlighten me. I'm waiting.

I don't know how you managed to reach a description of anarchy in this discussion. It has little to do with it, if anything. Calling free speech anarchy is like saying "freedom is slavery". Look up the phrase. I'm not providing an explanation of anything until you can demonstrate your ability to stay calm and within the frameworks of this discussion, rather than describing free speech as 'calamitous'.

like the chinese