Observations on the world today.

Thursday, February 24, 2005

In Defense of Defending the Indefensible 

The second letter on this page appeared in yesterdays Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. The writer is obviously an unAmerican fool. Allow me to quote:
Back to the ACLU. This group values fundamental principles over actual moral decisions. To defend a group such as NAMBLA should destroy the ACLU's credibility at once. As for card-carrying members, they should be ashamed of themselves if they have not yet complained about the support or "protection of the free speech" of NAMBLA.

The claim is that the free speech of this group is being defended. The bottom line is, a group that advocates these kinds of relationships does not deserve free speech. A line needs to be drawn somewhere, because principles cannot be applied to reality on every occasion without a deleterious effect somewhere along the way. People need to recognize that, yes, there is still a difference between right and wrong.
I wish to respond:
Dear Mr. Ciganik,

Free speech is not free if we choose what speech to allow.
The end, asshole. I mean, how obvious does a point have to be? I could go on quoting Voltaire and citing stories about Nazis and Skokie, but really - what more need be said?

Comments: Post a Comment

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?