Do you believe in free speech? How far would you go to defend the

[efhmc]

opposite point of view, even if that view is presented in a hateful, vile manner? As an example: Dr. Dobson is a freaky rightwinger who has done more harm than good with his "Focus On the Family", which I think should be more truthfully entitled "Focus on Hate and Bigotry". Would you shut him down, if you could, or let him continue to spread his message, twisted and harmful as it surely is, in the name of free speech?

[rd_kent]

1. I would protect him

His protection of free speech is just as important as mine. Areed, he sprews hate and intolerance and if I ever got the chance, I would give him a piece of my mind and a mouthful of knuckles....
But seriously, all speech needs to be protected whether you agree with it or not, period.

[FreedomAngel82]

5. Exactly

Even people who want to take away mine I would still fight for it. I'd go down dying.

[efhmc]

7. As a free speecher and prochoice person, I had a problem with the

zone around clinics. I want people to be able to express what they have to say but not be able to harass the women going into the clinics. They are are already under enough stress and self-examination. What is the answer. If we shut those with whom we disagree up, we are shutting ourselves up. However, letting these inhumane folks shout at vulnerable women is destructive and harmful. Still, if they do not have rights, then none of us do.

[rd_kent]

13. Yeah, youre right.

Free speech is free speech, until it interferes with someone elses freedoms. Blocking a clinic and harrasing patrons by hurling insults impedes the rights of the patron, and as such, is not protected speech.

[efhmc]

16. I think they are using this to keep us from the bushie. I will be going to

DC in Feb. to protest that pipsqueak freak. Where will I be able to stand and make my statement? Not close enough to be effective. This to me is NOT freedom of speech.

[Occulus]

2. Of course I would shut him down, without reservation

because he's trying to shut down people like me, who are gay, who are trying to find a public voice, but are denied by him and people like him.

As far as Dobson goes, I'd like to get him into a sealed room without exit and perform very painful experiments upon him involving fishhooks, small stones, a dead fish, a butane torch, and some solder, but that's just me. :)

[efhmc]

10. As a feminist Christian, I have some very hard thoughts toward this

unfortunate person. However, what I want and can do to change things is to educate one, maybe two people, to the idea that Christ was a liberal, progressive who loved and included ALL people, especially those who were outcasts in society and any person who cannot see the love and inclusion that is revealed and lauded in the NT needs some thoughtful education.

[CornField]

3. I disapprove of what you say

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." ~ Voltaire

[Selatius]

6. Agree with you there n/t

[efhmc]

9. That is a very powerful statement. How many of us would really do it?

Especially considering the hate that is heaped upon us as liberals.

[bluestateguy]

4. I wouldn't do anything

BUT there would be a lot of other people who would defend him, and I would wish them the best of luck at that!

[efhmc]

12. Defend him or defend his right to have his say?

[Warpy]

8. Unanswered hate is the problem, not free speech

If there were more of a counterbalance to the hate speech on the right, there would really be little problem. However, the track record of unanswered hate and its contribution to the attempted genocides in places like Bosnia and Rwanda is a very real problem.

I would defend Dobson's right to spew verbal sludge with every fibre of my being if we still had the Fairness Doctrine in place. With an answer to his vicious attacks against everyone who isn't a white Calvinist, his attacks would be put into perspective and most people, fully informed, would make the correct choice.

However, in the absence of the Fairness Doctrine, the only choice is to remove hate speech from the public airwaves. The right to free speech is not an absolute one, as shouting "FIRE" in a packed theater is illegal, along with inciting to riot on a public street. Using the public's airwaves to broadcast a message trying to legitimize hatred of segments of that very public is wrong and needs to be stopped.

(I'd really rather have the Fairness Doctrine back, though. I'd really rather have people see that thing for what he's become)

[efhmc]

11. "Unanswered hate". Wow, that is quite a concept. I do not want

to put words in your mouth, so correct me if I am inaccurate, you are saying that freedom of speech does not have room for "unanswered hate" and as such we have no moral obligation to protect what people are saying if what they are saying is rife with hatred and intended to create and spread hate for who do not fill the sacred mold, created by the god dobson? Am I correct or am I misconstruing what you are saying?

[Cleita]

14. Part of free speech is the freedom to debate opposing ideas you know.

Just because he's free to spew his hateful rhetoric doesn't mean that those of us, who oppose his ideas, can't challenge him and demand that he be accountable in explaining them to us. We should be able to challenge those whose ideas we oppose as they seem to feel free to challenge us. If we can't, then we no longer have free speech and the dialogue becomes one sided propaganda.

[efhmc]

18. Correct as usual. Having the right to speak, does not mean those

opposing do not have the obligation to challenge the other's skewed viewpoints.

[Telly Savalas]

15. Pretty much everybody supports free speech.

We just all have different ideas on where the line between protected speech and harassment/
"shouting fire in the crowded theater" is.

Even though his message is offensive, I personally don't believe Dobson has crossed that line.

[efhmc]

17. You see, as a feminist, I despise Howard Stern. Most here love him

because he hates bush but I despise his depiction of women as objects. This is my opinion and as much as I would like to put him out of the business of degrading women and as much as I hate his message, I still want him to have the right to express it.

[MercutioATC]

19. I disagree with his opinions, but I'll defend his right to express them.

The same set of standards that allow some people so spout racist or sexist garbage allow you and me to state OUR views. That's of FUNDAMENTAL importance, because it's perhaps the most critical element of a free society.