>>>>Here we are again. Quit whining and grow up. Are you a defender of the freedom of speech, yes or no. If you are, then you defend my right to speak and you don't write such offending and insulting words.
>>>>
>>>>As was mentioned to you earlier, where there is freedom of speech, someone is bound to say something at some time that someone else doesn't like. That is the entire point.
>>>>
>>>>Here are some interesting quotes that may help you to understand the concept since it is obvious that you don't:
>>>
>>>Marcia, thank you <g> for all examples, since it is obvious that I don't understand the concept. I certainly need some extra education here. In the mean time I try to test all those fine words, by speaking out my own opinions and see who tries to bring me to silence and with what 'arguments'.
>>
>>That last sentence makes it clear that you're missing the most important point. Freedom of speech is about the government's inability to stop you from saying something or to punish you for what you say. It has nothing to do with the way others respond to what you say.
>
>There were several examples here of people who say someone (here or in demonstrations) has the right to insult or offend, refering to the freedom of speech notion. My first reaction in this thread was about the use of Herr in the title. I think it's disgusting. I was not asking for any government action. Instead, I wanted to know what people here think of it. Most replied that he has the right, refering to freedom of speech. Apparently, that formal notion is abused a lot. It is apparently used whenever it comes in handy.

Which can only be if it is also TRUE. :o)

Frankly, I think most just tune out stuff like that. With a title like "Herr Obama" it is pretty obvious the direction the thread will take so many probably just ignore the thread entirely or choose not to participate in the discussion. The same with your thread - it may be than many just choose not to participate in the discussion. That doesn't mean they agree or disagree - it only means they choose not to discuss it.

However, you, as a sociologist, know that :o) It is no different than sitting in a coffee shop when an inflammatory subject is being discussed. How many folks agree with one side or the other but choose not to participate in the conversation because they just don't feel like discussing it, they don't like to participate in inflammatory discussions because they know it just incites the other side, or they don't think the subject is worthy of discussion?