[MD] e: The Moral Landscape

[plattholden at gmail.com]

On 20 Oct 2010 at 19:06, Andre Broersen wrote:

  Platt to Andre:

What did you expect to learn?

Andre:
I was hoping to explore with you the possible conditions (or not) under which
the appeal to free speech might be restricted. I am not talking about any Tom, 
Dick
or Harry or Mary saying what he/she wants. I am talking about person's in 
'authority',
persons in representative functions (e.g. politics). Or those situations Arlo 
brings up
in his latest post.

Are we simply allowed to say what we want?

Is it wise we, at all times and under any circumstance, say what we want?

I am simply questioning the wisdom of, for example, a Wilders and suspect 
ulterior motives
that have nothing to do with doing justice or even showing respect for this 
intellectual
pattern of value.

His statements go against at least 3 constitutional rights (also hard fought 
for...which some
members within his club want to see amended).

Platt
I see no problem in what Wilders has said. A potential for violence in return 
for being offended is no reason to curtail free speech. As for "justice" being 
an intellectual pattern of value, in most cases it's a static social pattern 
enshrined in the law. The intellectual patten than applies is the one that 
guarantees all citizens equal treatment when accused of violating the law. This 
means that laws guaranteeing free speech apply equally to politicians, 
government officials, capitalists, communists, anarchists and all citizens 
regardless of race, color or creed, Wilders included. The way to silence a  
politician you disagree with is to vote against him. But I see an increasing 
number of voters in the Netherlands support him. 

In short, any restriction on free speech should be only in cases where 
immediate physical harm is obviously present, like shouting fire in a crowded 
theater. 

Hope this meets your request.