I am writing in response to your ridiculous piece "Click and point hatred online" which degraded the "Opinions" section of msnbc.com's "news".

http://www.msnbc.com/news/394104.asp?0a=22784F1-

Writings that express intolerance to real or imagined vile behavior should be, if anything, better protected than those of bigots who cannot even tolerate the expression of ideas.

We are all familiar with the game of citing the most obvious and practical limits to "Free Speech" as an excuse for the arbitrarily intrusive expansion on such limits.

Both the authors of the first amendment, and the diminishing ranks of those who invest in the preservation of the corresponding fundamental right, understand that no freedom is absolute. It is erring towards liberty, however, that differentiates "free" society from fascism and other forms of totalitarianism.

Of course you should not confuse any of the crowd-rousing examples in your writing with practical limits. They are simply the standard diarrhea like run of consensus-building-by-raw-emotionalism examples that exploit the mob to buy-in to the balance of your kind of rhetoric.

Although perhaps in futility, I will leave you with the following food for thought.

If there could be any justice in selecting, beyond the most obvious and practical limits, rules of what can and cannot be said, it would have to be in keeping with the following:

"Let us allow those who advocate the intrusion of censorship to be the first so muted!"

Just as an environmentalist might stop making a mess before they advocate the "green" lifestyle to others, perhaps you might consider, as a show of good faith to your pro-censorship position, taking the lead and shutting-up first! 

Regards,

Eric H
www.deepwaterweb.com
explicit truth and unabashed wisdom