On 18/11/05, Martin Senftleben <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > It's a very difficult terrain, because at a certain point you reach > the same position the other has, and you are as "bad" as he is. How > long is it "protecting the freedom of thought and speech", and when > does it begin to be an attac against another person's life?
There are no easy answers -- otherwise we wouldn't be having this conversation. My main worry is that many countries seem be drawing the line closer to "restrict individual rights" rather than "protect free speech". Restrictions on individual rights are often easily justified especially "for the common good" -- and in the case of loonies like David Irving it's even easier. However at which point does it stop "serving the common good" and starts to merely serve the good of whoever is in power? -- b
