re: #460 Wendell Zurkowitz (slave to the waffle light)

If you do not like what a person says, then you are free to speak or act out against it. But not to kill, injure or destroy. That seems pretty clear.

Even the most liberal interpretation of Freedom of Speech draws a line at incitement to crime or violence.

My view (which I don’t intend to push on anyone particularly hard) is that this dualism between “speech” and “action” is too neat and doesn’t reflect what happens in the real world well enough. I think there need to be some curtailments on speech, in some cases. Verbal bullying of children and teens would be an example; there are others.

But I will agree that the US position is close to being ideal. In general it’s probably better to err on that side of the line than the other.