>>>[...]
>>>>>It is not crap and it is not a plea for a Mussolini type of dictatorship at all. You are playing the mussolini-card, only one step further and you are playing the nazi-card and hitlerizing Maureen Dowd. How come you Americans are so sensitive when it is about freedom? In a truly and omnipresent free environment (that is, in an anarchistic environment) not many of us would have survived this long. Perhaps even more important than freedom is civilization. I prefer to live in a civilized world over a completely free world.
>>>>
>>>> A civilized world? No on is advocating freedom to physically harm or take away the rights of others. Where does the concept of 'a civilized world' end and who decides what is civilized behavior and what is not? What if the majority thought it was 'civilized' to attend church every Sunday or to dress fully clothed from head to toe and down your arms? What if the majority thought it was civilized to cover your head or for women to not speak unless spoken too? I have seen examples of 'civilized' society in many countries and the thought of it going to extremes is terrifying. The enforcement of 'civilizied behavior' would be taking away freedoms that it has taken centuries to gain. You would prefer to have your right to free speech taken away in order to feel comfortable? Freedom of speech is worth defending vigorously even when you hate what is being said. That includes stupid and annoying comments and comments that might make you feel uncomfortable. I think what you are missing here is that freedom of speech matters so much because freedom matters.
>>>
>>>A civilized world defends freedom of speech, to name one type of freedom, but freedom of speech does not in itself defend civilization. That's why I think the concept of a civilized world is of a higher level than the concept of freedom of speech.
>>>
>>>Your focus on freedom of speech causes bias. You no longer see the dangers that accompany it.
>>
>>It was not only the primary discussion, but the entire discussion. Your question was specific to 'freedom of speech' and I responded specifically to your question. I think you are trying to move the discussion into another area because there is no support for restricting comments that are not dangerous or anti-racial or anti-ethnic, but only offensive in nature without restricting free speech. This discussion was entirely about the comments made about President Obama and freedom of speech. On another note, there are always some dangers inherent with freedoms. The question is are those dangers worth the freedom? That is why there are some laws involving speech.
>
>I started a thread with the title 'About those who allow Hitlerized Obama pictures'. Here, in this thread, my first reaction was about a part of the title that Kevin, the originator, gave it. Herr Barack Hussein Obama. That title is disgusting. Now tell me, do you want to grant Kevin the right to use such words, on behalf of freedom of speech, and do you deny me the right to state that it is disgusting?
>
>Oh, no need to answer. Of course you don't want to deny me that right. It would cause inner conflict. But then, how about YOUR stomach? Does YOUR stomach turn around when someone here calls your president Herr? Or do you not mind at all?
>
>And how about this one: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eS2rJP-udUs

No one has denied you the right to say anything. You've stated it plainly here. That's how it works. Kevin used his freedom of speech and you used yours. As long as neither of you break any laws or violate any of Michel's forum rules, you're free to say what you want. My personal reaction to what either of you says has no bearing on the matter.

eS2rJP-udUs