reply to previous post!

Had a comment from technicolour_me regarding my last post (which I also included in the philosophy community). I think (s)he may has a point so thought I'd let everyone else see it."hmm.. i would think that the limitation of free speech presents more problems than it solves. Not giving fascists, rascist and the assorted mass of other bigots across society a voice allows them to play a victim role, and perhaps allow them a greater voice than they would otherwise have had. It's like- banning a book is the surest way to make people want to read it. Isn't it better to let the fascists present their views, so their positions can be shown as the weak and unstable positions that they are, rather than preventing them? Banning them strengthens their position, it gives it some substance- one can envision those denied the right to present their views at the union feeling that their views are persuasive- that there was something to fear, of substance to their position, which is why the union sought to alleviate any power they might've gotten. It's not a logical reason to find something persuasive, but its one often used by extreme groups to some effect. I don't support fascism or racism, but I do support free speech. I rely on the community to be an open place of expression, and individuals within it to be logical and intelligent enough to shoot down positions which are unfounded and harmful. I realise it's pretty idealistic, but i figure- for every extreme view there's virtually an equal and opposite viewpoint- Pro-communist/free market enterprise Zionists/Holocaust deniers- and relatively free expression is the best way to arrive at a mutually beneficial synthesis."