>>>>>SNIP
>>>>>>
>>>>>>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.
>>>>>
>>>>>I think you are wrong, because you are arguing (though you don't say it above) that speech needs "the existence of certain rules".
>>>>>
>>>>>The first rule for a successful democracy is that 'speech must have no rule which can curtail it (speech)'. After that first rule we can have any other rule that is agreeable to the people.
>>>>>
>>>>>You seem to think that, under your scheme, the rules would be set according to YOUR ideas. That is highly unlikely. And one thing is certain, and that is that the rules would be added to over time. You say you would be the first to oppose such rules if they became "abused". But you might not be in a position to do so, because the rule you want to oppose might BE a rule that allows the authorities to silence you, even by jail.
>>>>>
>>>>>It's a nice theory, Peter, but people craving power will go to any extreme to get power. That's why I brought up the "worst case scenarios". If we don't learn from history we are doomed to repeat it. No amount of goodwill by the throngs can stand in the way of a power-hungry person who has laws s/he can use to restrict speech. That is why NO law regarding speech is the only tolerable situation.
>>>>
>>>>Try Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech
>>>>The right to freedom of expression is not considered unlimited; governments may still prohibit certain damaging types of expressions. Under international law, restrictions on free speech are required to comport with a strict three part test: they must be provided by law; pursue an aim recognized as legitimate; and they must be necessary (i.e., proportionate) for the accomplishment of that aim. Amongst the aims considered legitimate are protection of the rights and reputations of others (prevention of defamation), and the protection of national security and public order, health and morals.
>>>>
>>>>There is also a text describing the situation in the U.S. and Canada.
>>>
>>>I don't get your point here, Peter.
>>
>>Wikipedia discusses the restrictions in the third paragraph, not in the 87th or so paragraph. It marks the importance of rules. You are a minority and that's what I wanted to show you.
>>But hey, I'm not suggesting here that a minority is always wrong. But you sometimes let it appear asif I am the person who's having the odd view.
>
>Because I think you ARE the person here having the odd view.
>You want a rule that prevents Mr. Robertson from saying the things he does.
>I am quite sure that the HUGE (repeat: HUGE) majority of people on UT, in the U.S., in Canada, in Europe and most any other democratic system oppose that idea.

Two things.
1) The debate is no longer limited to the Robertson case. It is you (in plea of no restrictions at all) versus me (in plea of certain restrictions).
2) Robertson suggested to assassinate the Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez. That's quite militant. I plea to look what laws/acts apply here.

..in Europe.. Well, in Europe we don't have tv-evangelists like Pat Robertson. Why would that be?


>You are confusing the existence of some rules for very very very specific things with rules to muzzle anyone who YOU feel says something idiotic.
>What if you feel something said by someone was OK, or at least tolerable, but someone else felt the sayer should be strung up?

And again, the rules are known beforehand and are (should be) clear.


>Finally, since one can not predict what will next come out of the mouths of idiots, what kind of "rules" would you propose and what penalties would be attendant with the rules?

Finally and again, I am not the person who makes the rules. Moreover, the rules already exist.