Quote:
Originally Posted by chezlaw
I currently believe we can do no better than democracy. Lots of laws I don't like get passed (many I abhor) but even so I prefer democracy to anything else. I'd rather we take bad laws along the way as we try to progress forward in a democratic manner than get held to some increasingly historic view unless and until the system breaks.
The difference isn't actually that stark as supreme courts will effectively change the law by reinterpreting. The same political battle goes on but somewhat removed from democracy. Instead of the UK government passing new legislation, what happens is the supreme court might decide that some acts are not just speech - fighting talk for example. I wouldn't be surprised if one day the supreme court decides some part of being hateful isn't speech and hence isn't protected.
Eh, I think our differences here are mostly differences of philosophy and not logic, and I respect your views here.
I agree that democracy is certainly the best form of government among those humans have thought up so far, and I agree that in theory those democracies can ban certain types of speech.
I do not base my positions on the first amendment of the US, because
1) I recognize it applies only in the US, and
2) Just because something exists in the US constitution does not mean it is "correct" or the best view on something.
All that being said, I am strongly in favor of free speech. I would be strongly against any law barring any kind of speech that does not result or directly lead to immediate physical harm to another human.