On 11/19/2010 12:03 PM, BOB KLAHN -> JOHN MASSEY wrote:

 BK>>> He shouldn't be. Freedom of speech still allows for the refusal
 BK>>> to accept speech intended to be harmful.

 JM>> What do you mean by refusal to accept speech intended to be
 JM>> harmful? Does your "refusal to accept" have anything to do
 JM>> with preventing the speech in the first place?

 BK> Depends on the speech. When it comes to calling on a mob to
 BK> murder someone, most certainly yes.

 BK> When it comes to merely derogatory or demeaning speech, the
 BK> refusal to enable it, the refusal to convey it, and the active
 BK> response of denouncing it, should be enough.

I can see where doing that would make you feel better about yourself.

--- Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2.12) Gecko/20101027