>I think this position makes perfect sense. Freedom of speech, like all personal rights, must be exercised with appropriate responsibility to the rights of the many. The problem is always the slippery slope ...

As I just said in another post - agreed - to a point. Who makes the rules on who's labeled a terrorist?
Remember back in the 50's with McCarthy? Are we about to make that blunder again?

>>There are quite a few things which do not fall within the 'freedom of speech' guarantee. Slander and libel are examples. Terrorist groups recognized as enemies of the U.S. should not fall within freedom of speech either. I cannot stand on the corner and yell my beliefs if those beliefs include subversion against the U.S. and if those beliefs threaten bodily harm to any individual. Why would the U.S. allow groups which are enemies of the U.S. to spread propaganda inside its borders? I'm referring to groups recognized as terrorists and enemies of state. That means groups which target U.S. citizens or our country. That would be crazy.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>>I cannot believe you feel that freedom of speech should include information or viewpoints from a terrorist organization.
>>>
>>>I must say that I can't believe you just wrote that.
>>>
>>>What happened to "... but I will defend to the death your right to say it."?
>>>
>>>I have a problem with our (Canada's) laws regarding spreading hate. I've always believed that "freedom of speech" mean freedom to say anything, no matter how stupid it may sound.
>>>
>>>I'll qualify it with contracts to keep things secret sort of supersede freedom of speech, but such contracts are voluntarily signed. I would expect that breaches in such cases are not challenged based on freedom of speech, but rather on breach of contract.
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>SNIP