>>>>>>Well, Peter, we do (you, me and Mr. Robertson at least) live in a free and open society where, as citizens of our respective countries, we may say (almost) whatever we want whenever we want.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>The solution to "problems" like Mr. Robertson is to consistently de-value the nonsense they spout. They eventually become twits and people filter their words accordingly.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>People like Mr. Robertson are the real test of a free and open democracy.
>>>>>>Far better to have idiots like him say what they want to say than to set up some arbitrary mechanism that is empowered to mute or penalize stupid statements. Under such a system "stupid" could quickly evolve to include dissenting opinion or other valuable voices.
>>>>>
>>>>>Jim,
>>>>>You write People like Mr. Robertson are the real test of a free and open democracy. Does that imply that eventually he can and should be forbidden to say something? If not, why see it as an ultimate test? What I intend to say is, if others don't take action, it may be
>>>>>- because the others agree;
>>>>>- because the others think it is still on the good side of the test;
>>>>>- because the others are apathetic, rather than tolerant.
>>>>
>>>>No, Peter, "action" is not the measure to be used for this kind of thing. In fact "freedom of speech" directly implies that no action is the only acceptable means of dealing with the issue.
>>>>
>>>>So it is left up to the individual.
>>>>Let's use the UT as an example. I know for a fact that I am on several people's "twit filter". Their personal action is to evaluate that I have nothing relevant to say and so they use this feature to back that up. But in the absence of that feature they would simply invoke the action of skipping my messages. It could occur that I will end up talking only to myself. And if I "earn" that, then so be it.
>>>>
>>>>It is exactly the same for Mr. Robertson. The more silliness he espouses, the more people categorize his words as irrelevant.
>>>>This is a self-correcting mechanism that totally excludes the government, which is exactly how freedom is best protected.
>>>
>>>Yes, let's use the UT as an example. You and I know that in fact there is a certain degree of censorship here, because there is a moderator. Now... do you feel restricted in your freedom to speak?
>>
>>That is not the point. The UT is not a democracy. It is owned. In a democratic society, who gets to be the moderator - somebody who agrees with you (and me), or somebody who agrees with Robertson? for example, in the U.S., does Dubya, as their duly elected president get to be moderator? Now that would be something to see.
>
>It was JimN who brought the UT in as an example. But I don't see why it makes a difference. The point is that the UT has written down a set of rules that we must 'obey'. The same is the case in any democracy. To remain viable, a democracy has to protect itself against anti-democratic speeches, for example.
>I'm not pleaing for installing 'persons' who decide what can be said. I'm pleaing for rules, rules that were democratically chosen in a democracy (and not-so-democratically perhaps in a business). Rules that must protect the democracy and such rights as freedom of speech. In fact, those rules are often already there. But are they applied? Is Pad Robertson tolerated, or is there no action due to apathy/lazyness/lack of courage?

When you say 'democratically chosen', it begs the question of how those choices are made. Do we vote on every proposal? Do we accept that whatever our democratically chosen leaders want to do is acceptable? A free society must accept that freedom is not a simple thing. It is up to each and every person in that free society to make choices. Each of us has to have the right to express our opinions, or we simply no longer have a free society. If certain members of society have no right to express their feelings, then how can we ensure that it is not our opinions (those of us on the 'sane' side of any issue) that will be outlawed.

No. If you can curtail somebody elses right to speak, then you can curtail mine, and I find that to be completely unacceptable.