>>>>>>>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?
>>
>>(Sorry to correct you. I studied psychology, not sociology. Or better: social pychology. Never worked as a psychologist, though.)
>>
>>Kevin wouldn't have created this thread with 'Herr' if I hadn't started my thread. It is essentially a heated debate, in two threads, between two points of view (is it allowed to hitlerize someone yes/no), although others have brought in their own specialties. One might discuss about the meaning of 'allowed' in that phrase, about hitlerization (what is it, when is it the case). That's what I wanted. However, Kevin used it to get attention for his opinions about Obama. It is the same tactic that the hitler poster carriers used; do something negative to get attention.
>>
>>What has struck me most, is the strong defense of the freedom of speech notion. I'm inclined to mention it fundamentalistic. As Marcia pointed out to me, George Washington wrote:
>>If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter. George Washington 1732-1799, First President of the USA
>>For me that statement is propaganda, rather than a scientifically grounded conclusion. I'm not saying here that it is nothing but a lie. I'm saying that it is very black and white, esp. if not read carefully. People shouldn't point their fingers to it in each and every case where there is an attempt to somewhat limit freedom of speech. The statement is about 'the freedom of speech ... taken way'. It is not about 'some freedom ... taken away'. It is not a plea for total freedom of speech.
>
>If you truly believe that, then you sir are nowhere near as intelligent as you think you are.

Not sure (intelligent enough) what you mean with 'that'. I need additional info before I can reply.