Im no lawyer or in any way near the practice of the legal profession but I spent some time reading an interesting discussion in the comments what makes Charlie Hedbo satirical cartoons legal as compared to the stunt that Celdran pulled. However to a practical man (or atleast one who subscribes to at least a similar concept of free speech as i do) its weird and contradictory to like one and hate the other...which I spent time puzzling over prior to reading the comments. Although... In end they should stop calling free speech, free speech if there are boundaries to it. Its like that matter concerning getting sued for because an external hard drive does not have EXACTLY 3 TB capacity (2.7 TB) despite the packaging claming it does. For me, I already understood free speech as both hurtful and uplifting, no time, place,relationship,occasion or whatever to protect you. So people can say shit to you and you just have to live with that and you have no right to stop them from saying things it but you can convince (w/o any form of force or coercion involved) them to stop if you want them to stop. Hence my confusion regarding the two matters.
Posted on: Mon, 12 Jan 2015 04:24:38 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015