Theres a Limit To 'Freedom'
June 6th 2007 04:14
What is it with people that make them think the concept of 'freedom of speach' gives them rights beyond others? Gives them the ability to condemn other defensless groups without reason simply because of prejudice? Would sitting around watching freedom of speach in action simply be a passive way of letting harm come to those who can't defend themselves?
Where can we just say 'no, not freedom of speach or expression, shut up, get lost'? When it is adult to adult ala KKK hates Black people? No, because black people are adults too and they can defend themselves, added to the fact people will support blacks against undue hate. Freedom of speach should have its line drawn if and when people start taking it upon themselves to promote hate and attacks against a group or entity that cannot defend itself.
So what is it with people who support at least passivley the abuse of children? It's disgusting in every sense of the word, if we have to negotiate our freedoms and morals then surely abuse of children takes a precedence over someones ability to express their views. If we could arm every child with a shot gun and the ability to kill pedophiles attempting to advance on them then by all means, obviously we can't which is why they need the extra level of protection. Which isn't exactly working if we allow people to fantasize and inevitably act on those fantasies.
Are we to find that someones ability to say 'I want to stick my cock into your seven year old daughter' is more important than protecting a child? Obviously teh next step from expressing ones views is acting in accordance to ones views. If a person has views as vile as this and in reality there is nothing stopping these views from taking effect as is aptly obvious then where are we to go and what are we to do?
We cannot defend someones right to speach if they speak against the very fundamentals of human decency in this case because in this case the victims are real and are being victimized and are suffering. If we were to look at the KKK, they can say all they want,they're week and pathetic, lost in their own little world, but go futher back, look at Hitler, he was dangerous and violent, he could turn his words into practice and he did.
Even if the speaker is not actively participating in the acts but rather passively encouraging it should we allow it? Perhaps the punishment for an advocate of pedophilia should not be as harsh as someone who actually involves in such actions though that doesn't mean advocating a crime is not a crime.
In the end it all comes down to the simple words, 'evil prevails because good men fail to act', and fail to act we do very well, not only do we not act we fool ourselves into thinking we are noble in our inaction.
Where can we just say 'no, not freedom of speach or expression, shut up, get lost'? When it is adult to adult ala KKK hates Black people? No, because black people are adults too and they can defend themselves, added to the fact people will support blacks against undue hate. Freedom of speach should have its line drawn if and when people start taking it upon themselves to promote hate and attacks against a group or entity that cannot defend itself.
So what is it with people who support at least passivley the abuse of children? It's disgusting in every sense of the word, if we have to negotiate our freedoms and morals then surely abuse of children takes a precedence over someones ability to express their views. If we could arm every child with a shot gun and the ability to kill pedophiles attempting to advance on them then by all means, obviously we can't which is why they need the extra level of protection. Which isn't exactly working if we allow people to fantasize and inevitably act on those fantasies.
Are we to find that someones ability to say 'I want to stick my cock into your seven year old daughter' is more important than protecting a child? Obviously teh next step from expressing ones views is acting in accordance to ones views. If a person has views as vile as this and in reality there is nothing stopping these views from taking effect as is aptly obvious then where are we to go and what are we to do?
We cannot defend someones right to speach if they speak against the very fundamentals of human decency in this case because in this case the victims are real and are being victimized and are suffering. If we were to look at the KKK, they can say all they want,they're week and pathetic, lost in their own little world, but go futher back, look at Hitler, he was dangerous and violent, he could turn his words into practice and he did.
Even if the speaker is not actively participating in the acts but rather passively encouraging it should we allow it? Perhaps the punishment for an advocate of pedophilia should not be as harsh as someone who actually involves in such actions though that doesn't mean advocating a crime is not a crime.
In the end it all comes down to the simple words, 'evil prevails because good men fail to act', and fail to act we do very well, not only do we not act we fool ourselves into thinking we are noble in our inaction.
| 36 |
| Vote |
Comments (7)
Add Comments
