vic the problem is trying to police one or a few peoples views, be them a reglious nutter ( if they the former then are also the latter in my eyes), tv presenter or anyone with a public voice and with the current media thats all of us
if you agree rules need putting in place for what we say then freedom of speech went along time ago
somewhere along the way the trust that most people will make they own view has been removed, i have nutters knocking on my door, see them on tv, read about them in the media, i dont need rules to tell me how to deal with them, blessed with commom sense
soon as you rely on freedom of speech rules you have to keep rewriting them, it is not what is said but how the majority treat it, you can not police nutters and cant police how the majority will react to them but if the majority agree then it is right.
great quote from book i have just read
the author questioned some petty rule and the response was
"dont need to think when you have rules"
and that is the key, doesnt matter what any nutter says if common sense is blessed to the masses, if they dont have that we are all doomed no matter what rules you bring in
the case you mentions shows this, collection of rules that try to fit in but then not sure what to do or make a choice out of step with what they are based on.
the short answer for you hard of reading:
what is "said" is not important but how the public treat it
any nutter welcome at my door with stories of their santas, tooth fairies,gods or other characters of fiction.....dont need rules to tell me how to think
let everyone have their soapbox and have faith (the non reglious kind) that the public will make their own choice, it is what our system is based on...isnt it
|
|
I am amazed...... by 'vic' (14 Feb 2009 @ 7:59)
