zlacker

>>dredmo+(OP)
Free speech balances delicately, and that should be debated vigorously, but it should not be treated as an absolute.

You shouldn't be free to incite violence. Nor should a company help that speech spread.

>>tarkin+a7
> "You shouldn't be free to incite violence. Nor should a company help that speech spread."

only the fringiest of fringes argue for absolutes. everyone (else) is arguing about where the line is drawn. for instance, if we take yours at face value, you'd be arguing against the american revolution.

>>clairi+j8
I find your absolutist interpretation hard to understand. I think if the occurrence of a situation in which violence is appropriate necessitates an exception to a rule, that doesn't necessarily indicate a bad rule. For example, even though the Founding Fathers were presumably well aware that circumstances may exist in which violent revolution would be justified, note that the constitution they drafted didn't make allowances for a new American Revolution to able to occur without any laws being broken.