Quote:
Originally Posted by Anh_Minh
So what if every action has consequences? What does that have to do with anything? Would you promote anarchy because, hey, if people kill each other, they just have to accept the consequences?
|
But that
is how reality right now. We have enough common sense that is why we do not choose anarchy. The consequences of killing someone is so huge that not enough people kill each other for society to become anarchy. It's all checks and balances.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anh_Minh
We craft laws to reach a balance between liberty and safety. (And yes, I do know the quote about those who trade one for the other, but let's face it: anarchy is idiotic.) Where is that balance, where freedom of expression is concerned? Do you want, on a matter of principle, dismiss the consequences of a greater freedom of speech with an airy "eh, it's a matter of personal responsibility"? "Human lives don't matter compared to the freedom of spreading hate"?
|
We do, and the laws never
forbid, at least not in my constitution. The commandments say thou must not, while the laws say if p then q. If you don't want q to happen to you then for the love of God (other spiritual beings, etc...),
don't do p. Back to the freedom of expression thing, all we have to do is make the consequences unfavorable enough for people to rethink some actions.
In summary: Yes to absolute freedom, but it's
we who must decide if the consequences are worth it instead of some laws restricting us to express them.