Agreed. Before I'd even vaguely glimpse in the direction of possibly considering the notion of agreeing with her, I'd need to know what criteria she's thinking of using as guidelines to help her decide whether someone's words are being "used to abuse". Hells, I've been a victim of verbal bullying - 12 years throughout school - and I still couldn't tell you on first hearing whether something is meant to be abusive or not. So much depends on context.
The point about free speech is that it *is* free. It's not "free unless" with a long string of disclaimers. It is free. It's designed that way in order to prevent (for example) the ruling body of the country from declaring that any negative opinion expressed of their competence is grounds for a declaration of treason. It's designed so that expressing any political position whatsoever, from the most authoritarian right through to the entirely anarchic is legal, no matter who is in power at the moment. That is *why* it is free. Attempting to muzzle *anyone* is an infringement of freedom of speech (and yes, I do get vaguely uncomfortable about "hate speech" laws, because while the intent is good, the effect is lousy), and freedom of speech is one of those things which *has* to be absolute in order to be effective.
Sheesh, I know this and I'm Australian - we don't even *have* freedom of speech over here. I do hope one of the people who was falsely accused of being a paedophile decides to use that particular chunk of Australian law against her - our libel and slander laws are *tough*.
no subject
The point about free speech is that it *is* free. It's not "free unless" with a long string of disclaimers. It is free. It's designed that way in order to prevent (for example) the ruling body of the country from declaring that any negative opinion expressed of their competence is grounds for a declaration of treason. It's designed so that expressing any political position whatsoever, from the most authoritarian right through to the entirely anarchic is legal, no matter who is in power at the moment. That is *why* it is free. Attempting to muzzle *anyone* is an infringement of freedom of speech (and yes, I do get vaguely uncomfortable about "hate speech" laws, because while the intent is good, the effect is lousy), and freedom of speech is one of those things which *has* to be absolute in order to be effective.
Sheesh, I know this and I'm Australian - we don't even *have* freedom of speech over here. I do hope one of the people who was falsely accused of being a paedophile decides to use that particular chunk of Australian law against her - our libel and slander laws are *tough*.