>>SNIP
>>>>>
>>>>>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?
>>
>>Peter,
>>I brought the UT in as a population. You erroneously equated the UT's censorship with abrogated freedom of speech.
>>
>>The Nazis were extremely cautious to ensure that every one of their activities was backed up by some law (or rule if you prefer). Yet the result remains unimaginable except for one thing - it happened!
>>
>>Both the U.S. and Canada (others?) "interned" citizens of Japanese origin during WWII. It was all done legally and in the wisdom of hindsight was a very regretable act.
>>
>>As soon as you make a rule about what SPEECH is tolerable and what is not you immediately infringe on someone's rights. Worse still, the rules can grow to encompass more and more instances until, sooner or later, IT INCLUDES YOU TOO!
>>Yes, it is a royal pain-in-the-a55 to have to hear the words of idiots. But it remains far more preferable to the alternative. And you can be assured that any starting "rule" on such matters would be joined by other rules at every opportunity.
>
>Why always mention the worst cases?! At the time that I notice that the rules (laws and acts) are abused to (militantly!) gain power over opponents, I'll be the first to oppose!
>
>I think each real friend of the freedom of speech appreciates the existence of certain rules.

Can any two people agree on what the rules should be? Mine or yours? :)