Quote:
Originally Posted by Indy
What you overlook is that what constitutes a bigot is entirely dynamic, based entirely on who happens to be in charge that day. I can drive around the town where I live and pull 5 random people off the street and ask them to define it, you'll get 5 different answers. At least 2 will say it's gay people who want to get married or adopt children (bigoted against Christians) and 2 will say it's Christians who won't let gay people marry or adopt (bigoted against GLBT).
Freedom of Speech is there to protect EVERYONE...even people you don't like, because tomorrow, you might be the minority that needs protection.
|
No, it isn't there to protect everyone. For example, if a drunken cockney chav gets on public transport and starts mouthing off about how she hates hangovers after a good night out then she'd be looked on as weird, yes, but it can be justified by free speech.
However, someone who choses to be openly racist and use extreme abuse and threats on someone simply isn't acceptable and nobody should have to be subject to that. If free speech was there to protect everyone, would people really be arrested for this sort of thing? If you don't have boundaries then you're basically saying that every abusive, vile, idiotic thought that enters someone's mind - even if it hurts someone, which it will - should be tolerated. Why defend the idiots but not the people who are being victimised?