|
As a Canadian, I maybe have a different take on this, especially since we have somewhat different laws when it comes to these types of things.
However, having said that, I honestly can't see how you can use a word like "freedom" and then say you want to "limit" it. Which is it? If, in fact, you want to limit free speech, then that is to say that you want to revoke the right to free speech and replace it with certain limited ability to express yourself within the confines of new legislation.
Simply put, do what you want, but call it what it is. Limited Free Speech is not "Free Speech." Period.
So, do it. Take away the right to express one self freely. Take away the right public assembly. Take it all away. It's only a constitution anyway, and I'm sure the framers had a reasonable expectation that someday, someone like Geo. W. Bush would find a perfectly good reason to thrust the country into a state a martial law simply because a badly conceived war on terror, a foolhardy war in a foreign country, and an innate inability of a commander in chief to function on any recognizable intellectual level.
The slippery slope starts with the smallest of concessions, and ends with the most appalling violations of rights and trusts, and ANY limit placed on your freedoms, especially for no proven good reason, are the first step down, and the footing just gets worse from there.
Peace,
Pierre
__________________
---
There is no such thing as strong coffee - only weak people.
---
|