david f,

Very well said.

Foxy thinks the world is made of apple pies and fairy floss and all things nice and refuses to accept that the bad, the irrational and the objectionable are coexistent in her world.

Mr O,

Not all girls are made of sugar and spice and everything
nice.
Some girls are made of adventure and wine and all things
fine.

Dear David,

Calling females - sick maggots, capricious maggots,
petulant prostitutes, and worse. Referring to people as
mental retards, bastards, neuters, freaks, the most
dangerous race/cult on earth - and worse - does not
amount to free speech but cringe-worthy -
hate speech.

And, every time hate speech is permitted it costs someone
a part of his or her self. A part of their self respect or
a part of their sanity. It rips people to shreds and destroys society. Hate speech
is anything but free.

I would prefer if we were to leave this topic here.
I don't want to continue to give it a platform any further.
The First Amendment of the US Constitution allows you to
speak your mind and stand up for what you believe in.
However the limits on free speech are rooted in the
principle that you are not allowed to harm others to get
want you want

Foxy,

well finally we agree, I too feel you should leave this topic.
I'm sorry you are such a sensitive person.
It makes for a good woman, but perhaps a bad debater?
I had no idea you were so passionate, about EVERYTHING!
But as you say, I think it best if you don't engage with this topic further, it seems it's for the best.
All the best.

David,

Poetry and jokes aside, I think Foxy's position clearly demonstrates my point.
I made my position very clear, over and over again, but she refused to accept anything that SHE felt SHE did not like.
Now if my utterings were directed at her, one must ask, did they reflect the point or criticism I was making?
The answer is yes, of course it was, as I was addressing a particular comment which was in fact incorrect, or at least was an 'opinion', which was a personal view, and therefore not fact or reality based.
Condemning and criticising someones way of speaking or language is extremely patronising, especially because that IS the language and method of communication they/I grew up with.
Gutter talk, I hear you say.
If that's what someone wishes to call it fine, but, it must be said that by doing so you are exposing yourself to be a bigot and other forms of an unsavoury person, and even a hypocrite!
It is no different than mocking or criticising someone for speaking"pigeon English".
I remind everyone that like beauty being in the EYES of the beholder, speech is in the psyche or mindset of the beholder.

Dear Foxy,

You wrote, “I would prefer if we were to leave this topic here.”

I would prefer not to leave the topic here but to explain further why I am so passionately devoted to free speech.

I am a Jew with ideas that many find obnoxious. I have been attacked as a Jew and for my ideas. I glory in the fact that I live in a country where I can answer my attackers. However, there is a quid pro quo. If I want the freedom to answer my attackers, I cannot deny them the freedom to attack me.

John Milton belonged to a group, the Puritans, which was despised by the English establishment.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Milton

“...his celebrated Areopagitica (1644), written in condemnation of pre-publication censorship, is among history's most influential and impassioned defences of freedom of speech and freedom of the press."

I can assume that his motivation for writing Areopagitica is much the same as mine for continuing this discussion.

You wrote: “However the limits on free speech are rooted in the
principle that you are not allowed to harm others to get
want you want.”

No, Foxy, free speech can be harmful and may be necessary to get what you want. Free speech may expose corruption and thereby be harmful to the corrupter. However, it is necessary to get what you want if you want to expose the corrupter.

I maintain that the only permissible limit on free speech is that it presents a clear and present danger. Even that limit goes by the board if the clear and present danger is to a corrupter or other entity that should not be immune to the effects of free speech.

The problem with outlawing hate speech is deciding who should have that power. I would trust you not to abuse that power. However, it would not be you who would have that power but someone in the government of the day. They could define hate speech in a manner that would protect their interests.

david f,

Cicero was a free speaker.

And when it came to Mark Antony you could say that Cicero spoke his head off, if you get my pun.

Yes, David, free speech is crucial.

I applaud your last few posts on this thread.