[quote]Cortes wrote:
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
[quote]KyleT wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
You must defent freedom of speech for the fringes of public opinion because only those need protection.
To “just restrict it a little bit” effectively kills it entirely because those things we all believe in are not controversial.
Therefore to kill freedom of speech only for those ideas that are “too far out there” kills it for all ideas for which the protection of speech actually matters.
[/quote]
I completely agree with this. With freedom of speech it’s all or nothing. I don’t see how this truck can relate to yelling fire in a crowded theater. As much of an idiot this truck owner is, we need to protect his right to free speech. Just because you don’t like what someone says doesn’t make it illegal. If he wants to put “I hate niggers” on his truck so be it, this is a constitutional right.
The federalist, get your 4chan ass otta here you sick fuck.[/quote]
Ok. So, lets say this guy drives this truck, and a few muslims see it, and decide it would look better gently altered with a few baseball bats, and, for good measure, so would his head.
Would you say that those muslims should get a stricter sentence than they would had they simply randomly attacked someones car/person? How would you see the art on the back of his truck affecting the situation?
[/quote]
I would say then, that free speech is self-correcting. Now, the actual wrong would have been commited by the people who vandalized the truck and assaulted him.
And no, they should not receive any kind of stricter sentence. Vandalism is vandalism. Assault is assault.
I mean seriously, if somebody really painted “I Hate Niggers” on the back of his truck, that truck would not be around for very long, or he lives in an area where it doesn’t really matter, anyway.
[/quote]
Good points. But the fact remains, you’re right - if they painted that on the truck, it wouldn’t be around for long, i.e. they went out of their way to incite violence against them. Perhaps that should be a mitigating factor in the assault case, then?