Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!csd4.milw.wisc.edu!lll-winken!uunet!ficc!jeffd
From: jeffd@ficc.uu.net (jeff daiell)
Newsgroups: news.misc
Subject: Re: Expansion of rec.humor.funny to other networks
Summary: Actually, yes.
Message-ID: <3651@ficc.uu.net>
Date: 1 Apr 89 15:10:14 GMT
References: <439@corpane.UUCP> <3100@ddsw1.MCS.COM> <9773@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU> <749@aoa.UUCP>
Organization: Ferranti International Controls
Lines: 34

In article <749@aoa.UUCP>, carl@aoa.UUCP (Carl Witthoft) writes:

> Heyhey. Dont' you guys know the difference between freedom of expression
> and offensive behaviour? Free example:
> 1) I disagree that you should be allowed to say anything you wish about
> someone so long as you don't actually make criminal accusations.
> 2) You dumb f***s have no *** idea what you're talking about. You are
> all probably Commies anyway, so go eat s**t.
> Now, should both of these examples really be covered by free speech?


While I certainly won't defend the couth or ethics of some of the 
remarks that might fall under (1), or the couth and ethics of (2) --
all too often, anyone who expresses an opinion the least bit 
different from those of Person A gets called a Commie by Person A --
I *will*, without apology, defend the right of an individual to engage
in such comments.  I've defended Brad's right to pass along racist
psuedohumor, although I *loathe* such crap.  And I'll defend the
right of leftwingers or rightwingers to spout their material.  

If we defend only what we like, we end up like the pastor in National
Socialist Germany who kept quiet as various groups were hauled off,
because he wasn't a member of any of those groups.

Laissez faire, laissez passer --

Jeff Daiell



 -- 

The closer April 15th gets...
The better the Libertarian Party looks.