Freedom of speech is restricted by definition. Take defamation, for example, most countries have laws against it even though essentially you're just using words.
Denying the Holocaust is forbidden in France for example because it insults the cultural memory. I don't think it's unreasonable.
The idea that everyone should be able to say what they want any time, anywhere is a nice idea, but impossible in practice.
As for the WBC, i think people were trying to forbid them from protesting at soldiers' funerals, should that be forbidden ?
I mean at some point when you tell someone their son deserved to die, should freedom of expression really mean you could say it as much as you want with no repercussions whatsoever ?
Psychological damage is damage too, and i'm pretty sure some words are more damaging than a punch to the face, yet words are free and punches are not, there is a dissonance there.
Denying the Holocaust is forbidden in France for example because it insults the cultural memory. I don't think it's unreasonable.
The idea that everyone should be able to say what they want any time, anywhere is a nice idea, but impossible in practice.
As for the WBC, i think people were trying to forbid them from protesting at soldiers' funerals, should that be forbidden ?
I mean at some point when you tell someone their son deserved to die, should freedom of expression really mean you could say it as much as you want with no repercussions whatsoever ?
Psychological damage is damage too, and i'm pretty sure some words are more damaging than a punch to the face, yet words are free and punches are not, there is a dissonance there.
