Comment Corner

Folks, what seems to be a topic of hot, sultry, nasty debate on here recently are the extents to which free speech should be protected. Essentially, two main arguments have advanced to the forefront and each shall be examined. One of them, of course, is bang-on the money in terms of being correct and the other is about as incorrect as anally fist-fucking your sister in front of the whole fandamly at Thanksgiving dinner. Even in Orillia.

Let's focus on the taboo-sister-Jumping-Fucking-Jesus-Christ position first. This position is that there should be no limits to free speech. Zero, zip, zilch, nada, niente. If you want to say it, feel free. The people who advance this postion are retarded clowns. Here's why.

1. COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT

If saying anything is free for me to do, then patents, intellectual property rights and copyrights have just become deader than Reese Witherspoon's career. What is the point of ever publishing anything, if some asshole can come along, swoop in at the last second and reap the profits?



The whole point of copyright infringement and the related reliefs is that it provides incentive for people to be able to create and enjoy the fruits of their labours. The concept of free speech differs from the concept of ripping people the fuck off and that's why the concept of free speech needs to be wrangled in. It is simply NOT okay to plagiarize, although by the amount of it that goes on, especially on this forum, you wouldn't know that. Imagine if you had typed out the next Harry Potter series of novels, but every Tom, Dick and Filthy Pierre were cranking out copies too. You'd be fucked. And dirty if it were Filthy Pierre doing the fucking.

2. PERJURY, LIBEL AND SLANDER

Feel like ruining somebody's life? Feel like making somebody the target of intense hatred, torches and pitchforks in the way that only the most degenerate of society, or Patricia Heaton, could possibly know? Why not publish a front page headline saying they love to rape Toyota Corolla exhaust pipes? How about a headline screaming that they cut off women's arms, drill holes in them and play them as a flute? Or just say they burned down an orphanage for a bottle of 7-UP. Who gives a shit? According to the theory of unbridled free speech, this is hunky-dory as people should be allowed to say anything without recrimination. Never mind the asshole suspected car rapist being dragged out back and shot behind the chemical shed, people don't want THEIR right to free speech infringed by anything.



And for you cock-noses that are going to be quick to say that those are all deliberate falsehoods and somehow, redemptive, two points: One, according to the theory of unbridled free speech, who cares if they're true or not. Secondly, libel and slander needn't be deliberately false. I could get a hot tip from a hobo I just hit with my car that the Mayor of Toronto is eating pancakes made from human flesh. I could believe the hobo, even though he's just finished eating a toner-cartridge sandwich and washed it down with a bottle of Thompson's Water Seal. I believe it to be true, I print it and David Miller is falsely arrested for cannabalism. Sound fair? If it's David Miller, it kind of is! Zing!

Back to reality, see how the libel and free speech are at odds with each other? Who should win, me, the guy who can make shit up about you and not worry about the damage to your life, or you, the guy who is now answering questions about the underground homosexual railroad you're digging beneath the US/Canadian border?

3. CENSORSHIP

There are certain things in society that need to be censored. I'm a staunch opponent of censorship in that it needs to be curtailed and justified for every inch of ground it gets. However, in a decent society, we don't need published manuals on how to kill Jews with an Appendix on their evils. Thankfully, nobody who doesn't speak German is publishing those. But, in our decent society, that book would necessarily be best kept out of the public's hands. But, I heard somebody say, what about a book that describes butt sex between men? Here's how censorship works: prove that the mano-a-mano butt-raunch book is harmful to society. Not with moral relativism, (Well gee committee...I'D be offended...), but with concrete facts. Can't do it? Out of the closet and onto the shelf.

4. BULLSHIT ADVOCACY OF FREE-SPEECH AS A SPECTACULAR ASS-COVERING

Most of the people who want unbridled free speech NEED speech to be free and unbridled. Check out their ideas, arguments and analysis. On and on they'll go how free-speech needs to be respected for academic ideas and scholarly pursuits, but would fucking shit their knickers if it were suggested a teacher be allowed to bash Christianity for a semester during highschool history.

The majority of free speech arguments are nothing more than proxy arguments designed to protect their own asses from future prosecution. When people argue that holocaust denial should be legitimately pursued, they don't give a rat's ass about debating the merits of it. They want a massive symbol that would permit them to go on hating some particular race in their own unique way.

The next slice of bullshit that trots from this theory are those that racism should be confronted with debate. They argue that any thing, no matter how scholastically unfounded, must be neutralized with debate, rather than silencing it. They're not interested in academic debate at all folks, all they want is an escape mechanism for their own asses when they get caught saying the Canadian army should shoot brown teenagers in Afghanistan. They want to be able to say that if they were willing to allow dissentful talk on the Holocaust, surely they should receive some of the same lenience they were willing to afford others.

Don't believe it. It's a crock.

Some people are just racist. They truly believe that one religion, race or creed inherently (and automatically in some cases) makes somebody ruinous to society. They're scared of what they don't know, so they hate it and want to destroy it.

Here's the truth folks, no one race, religion or creed has got a lock on violence. No one culture is immune from gross indignities inflicted onto it or by its hand. No one culture is going to flush Canada down the tubes and make it unrecognizable. Relax. Society has always had a boogey-man. The Irish, the Jews, the Eastern Europeans, Communists and now Muslims. They'll be a new one just like they'll be new weather.

And if you still believe in unbridled free speech, then I should be perfectly free to say that Barack Obama has got an undersized, no, almost absent [EDIT BY MOD].