- Joined
- May 11, 2016
- Messages
- 17,008
- Reaction score
- 11,216
Pretty simple concept for those not trying to hide behind what can be gotten away with legally.
free speech
- n.
Speech protected from government restraint by legal means, such as the First Amendment to the US Constitution. - n.
The right to express an opinion in public without being restrained or censored.
I totally agree with the above definition. You are the one trying to add and without any form of reprisal or consequence to the second definition.
Wrong again. Unless you think reprisal is always a justified response to disagreement.
If a town's residents lynched every Muslim extrajudicially, you'd say they were afforded freedom of religion?
Well, you are kind of missing the relevant point; that the town's residents would be guilty of murder.
A better question would be, "If a town's residents decided to boycott a business because the owner was Muslim, does that interfere with his freedom of religion?"
And the answer would be, no. He simply has a regrettable choice to make: exercise his freedom of religion or appeal to the prejudices of his potential customers. No one is disputing his right to make either choice, but no form of government action can be imposed on the townspeople to make them not boycott the business.
As usual, it is ironic that you think you are advocating for greater freedom of expression, but the only way to functionally impose this would be by limiting the expression of others.
Last edited: