YOU value the free speech of whoever is speaking, but not that of the counter protesters. Who themselves value THEIR free speech, but not that of whoever is speaking.
But the counter protesters are free to organize their own speaker engagement. They ARE allowed to speak about their position. My point was that there is lack of civility in discourse. What's the point of interrupting another speaker? Let every speaker speak their mind, in an orderly manner, without interruption.
The problem is that some groups have defined "intolerance of intolerance" to be somewhat good, so then discourse stops.
bilbo0s|8 years ago
YOU value the free speech of whoever is speaking, but not that of the counter protesters. Who themselves value THEIR free speech, but not that of whoever is speaking.
It's an intractable problem really.
banned1|8 years ago
The problem is that some groups have defined "intolerance of intolerance" to be somewhat good, so then discourse stops.