Replies

Bottom line, I happen to believe that when a person makes a conscious decision to do something that the consequences of that decision belong to that person alone. I used to listen to bands like Nirvana, and the Doors but it didn’t cause me to become a drug addict or alcoholic, and the same can be said for millions of other people. I am a huge fan of the show the Sopranos and movies like the Godfather, but they never caused me to aspire to join the mafia, and the same can be said for millions of other people.

I don’t believe in making excuses by blaming one persons behavior on someone else. What you are doing is blaming one group for the stupid actions of another group in much the same way that liberals and other assorted nanny staters are blaming banks and mortgage/credit companies for the fact that some people were stupid enough to take out home loans that they cannot afford to pay back.

Maybe you approve of the government legislating what is and is not acceptable for people to watch and listen to based on the assertion that some people MIGHT be compelled to act upon it, I don’t know. What I do know is that people who are inclined to commit violent criminal acts will still commit those acts whether they hear a recorded song or not, and that people who are inclined to be upstanding citizens will not commit violent criminals acts for hearing the same thing. Or maybe you believe that people are just too stupid to think and make decisions for themselves and need big brother to regulate and screen the kind of speech they are exposed to, in which case you cannot claim to support freedom and individual liberty.

Boittom line: There are commonsense/common Law restrictions on free speech...our entire system of governance would collapse without them.

This is a case which would help define those limits into a sharper focus. Does Free Speech encompass the right to cause harm to the greater good, and/or individual citizens?

Surely you do not attempt to say that words cannot do damage?

A right, *any* right, must be tempered with responsible use.

"Or maybe you believe that people are just too stupid to think and make decisions for themselves and need big brother to regulate and screen the kind of speech they are exposed to, in which case you cannot claim to support freedom and individual liberty." Silly logic..Silly logic is for Dims. If this were a truism, than there would be no need for codified Law, no need for a jury system. Humans are flawed, and social remedies are needed. Hum,ans are susceptible to undue influences. Lawmakers are susceptible to emotios of the moment, it's why there are three branches of government, and a system of checks and balances, so that stupid laws, corruption, is/are not enactted. Our Government is *based* on the fact that man is fallible, and so is any government we create. But the Law is codified to benefit the commonwealth as well as the individual. The Law bonderies enforced by the government, and those laws are ratified by the representatives of the PEOPLE. It is the by the consent of the governed that the laws exist. If the law says that actions are harmful to the people, it is in the purview of legislators and jurists to enact restrictions and seek redress from those who violate those restrictions.