rationalskepticism.org

Drawing lines is quite problematic because universal agreement cannot be found on where they should be and who does the drawing. And which is why I my self do not accept any boundary beyond either the limitation of ones imagination or of ones conscience. They are far more reliable metrics than anything the law can reference for less I agree with it there may be no deterrent against me saying what it is I want to say. In other words self policing is much better than state policing. Because if something is forbidden by law that does not actually prohibit one from saying it. It is just that if one does one will have to suffer the consequences. But long as one is aware of what the consequences are and accepts all responsibility for what they say then that is not actually a problem. Remember too that laws are going to be broken because if they were not then there would be no need to have them in the first place. And so any total prohibition against free speech is just nothing more than fiction. For most it will be a deterrent but no law is actually fool proof and so there will always be someone willing to break it particularly if it is one pertaining to a fundamental and universal human right as free speech. Which is way too precious to be contained by any restraint on it. Now of course no democracy has free speech without any limitation but as I have already said that is not actually a prohibition on free speech itself but the consequences of free speech so is not the same thing at all