It is sad that so many other countries don't recognize the basic fact that you don't need freedom of speech to say pleasant warm fuzzy things.

Speech such as the excerpt from best-selling author (and Canadian) Mark Steyn is not "hate speech" (what ever that means) it is merely an opinion.

I know many of you will disagree and feel that freedom of speech shouldn't cover things that might upset anyone, that might result in prejudicial feelings. But that is what freedom of speech is about, protecting the right of speakers that you don't agree with.

Very interesting way of putting it. Makes you wonder how long our "free speech" is going to last.

Even though the US has free speech pretty much garuanteed, it surprises me that SELF-censorship is rampant in the US.

Not to mention the FCC.

I don't think the current interpretation of the 1st Amendment should change one bit.

It really isn't the government's job to make sure you're constantly thinking of other people's feelings

it's time for la resistance

<a href='http://www.plime.com/redir.p?http://youtube.com/watch?v=uopIY-c_7eg&amp;amp;feature=related' class='plime' target='_blank' rel='nofollow'><b>flash video</b></a>

Here here!

I fully support our first amendment with all my being. Once we start to censor, when do we stop and who gets to determine exactly what is or isn't ok? A fundamentalist? An atheist? a Pro-life/pro - choice person? We all see things differently and not everyone will agree with the censorship coming from an opposing view.

There are plenty of people who say things I want to smack them for, shake them, do anything I can to knock a little sense into them but you know what? They have every right to say anything they want. A Neo-nazi group marched on my capital only 2 years ago and they were allowed to because they had every right. We didn't have to agree with them, we didn't have to let them convince us of anything, but if we can have parades for Purim and for Christmas or Easter, then they can march in representationn of what they believe.

Everybody knows that it's best to bottle up those bad feelings and never ever say anything about them.

Free speech zones? How American are they?

I'm extremely disappointed that amidst all the self-congratulatory back slapping and vague criticism of other folks this article ignores the restrictions on freedom of speech that are imposed by the Patriot Act.

One specific instance where FoS no longer applies are that if a Government Agency exercises it's right to access recorded informations such as books lent from a library, DVDs rented, etc. no-one may discuss that the information was accessed.

Another aspect is that it is currently a breach of the Patriot Act to speak in support of any organisation that could be described as terrorist in nature. Now you may not want to, but bear in mind that this would include, for example, speaking in support of the former leader of terrorist oganisation The ANC, Nelson Mandela*.

I'm not saying this as someone who lives in a country where there is unrestricted speech. There has long time been a proviso under British law that if you are going to say anything defamatory about another person, group of people or organisation, you expose yourself to potential consequences if you are unable to validate your claim.

Of course, more recently there are further impositions in the 2006 Racial and Religious Hatred Act, which, taking a long and slightly perverse view, implies that previous to the enactment, statements made to incite religious and racial hatred were demonstrably true.


In either case, nothing when compared with the state of play in Zimbabwe for example but still bad for two nations that pride themselves on their freedoms.


*As a matter of minor pedantry, GW Bush's bizarre speech about how all the Mandelas in Iraq had been killed by Saddam Hussein was a breach of the Patriot Act.