DoubtVsFaith Wrote:Yeah I understood that, my point was just that speech actions are actions too, and whilst freedom of speech actions is less restricted than freedom of other actions, and speech is less potentially harmful, it doesn't mean that speech can't do any harm at all or that it should have 100% freedom bar none exceptions.
So I don't know what you mean when you say "I thought we were talking about actions, not speech" speech is relevant too to the matter of tolerating the intolerant or not. Speech actions are actions too, they do things like other actions do they just have a lot less power and can't conflict physical damage (or at least not directly).
I know that speeches are actions as well and that speech can cause harm (I still think we should be able to say whatever we want without legal retribution, but that is another topic altogether.)
When I say, "I thought we were talking about actions, not speech." I mean that the OP was clearly talking about laws saying that people could not obey their holy book. He said nothing about whether people could say they wanted to follow their holy book. Therefore, his topic wasn't about free speech as much as it was about freedom of action.
Clearly, many people (and the law) think of physical actions and speech as two separate issues. Hence the term, "Actions speak louder than words." As we were talking about law, the two are separate.
