Freedom of speech is a right we've won in the western world; it is not a defense that can be used when we get into troubles. By suggesting freedom of speech is a tool (a weapon?) or an excuse you're actually lowering it's genuine value. That ticks me the wrong way.
Of course freedom of speech can be abused for evil purposes such as systematic vilification, but if you argue that freedom of speech was used as a weapon in the case of the JP newspaper, I refer back to my rubbish statement.
I refer back to my "Then it is still rubbish" post. I don't see how your reply answers my question. But this is getting me too silly. Perhaps it better to agree to disagree.
It's not like I have not stated "my possible implications" openly in the case of JP, so I don't know what you're surprised about.
I prefer the sillyness of referring to our own post 4 steps up ad infinitum. I think some silliness might be in order just to lighten everyone up, including myself. guaranteed to evoke a violent reaction from police is to challenge their right to "define the situation." --- David Graeber citing Marc Cooper
