Steve 41oo wrote:
but he doesnt have the right to piss down your leg. That would be assault.
nor does he have the right to incite others to piss on McLeg. That would be incitement.
freedom of expression is not absolute.
Yes it was a McAttempt at irony. I don't think we disagree about any of this.
I agree with the opinions expressed on the meeja tonight in opposing this, that the Union has used the "freedom of speech" argument cynically to create a volatile situation and gain publicity, to show what a tolerant liberal the Union President is.
They know what opinions these guys have. They are discredited morally in respect of their violent and racist views, and factually in respect of their Holocaust denial. What then is the purpose of the debate?
Who will pay for the policing? If heads are broken, who will take the blame?