Speech with which one agrees is easy to defend. Most would defend political speech with which they disagree, although a minority would censor it. The strength and uniqueness of the First Amendment is that it defends even hate speech. The response to speech we don't like is not less speech, but more. InI find the burning of books--any books--abhorrent. That said, Canadian-style censorship (censorship for the sake of feigned "niceness"; censorship pushed by Official Jews who fear that without it, the Nazis will come back) is even worse. And killing people because a certain book has been burnt--that, of course, it worst of all.
Skokie, some Holocaust survivors created a museum to commemorate those who were murdered by the Nazis. That's the correct reaction. Overcome darkness with light. Overcome speech you don't like with speech you do like.
Wednesday, April 27, 2011
Bad. Worser. Worst
In a JWR piece about a Koran-burning pastor, Cal Thomas 'splains how that free speech stuff is supposed to work: