FWIW, it *is* a ruling against liberty, but that's not automatically a bad thing; I think this is a classic case of "your right to swing your fist ends where my face starts". People all too often forget that while freedom's important, so's non-interference, and in fact, the former cannot exist without the latter. Nobody would argue it should be legal to randomly beat up people you don't like, even though laws prohibiting that ARE restricting your freedom; this is really the same thing, although the beating-up occurs on an intellectual rather than physical level here.
But then, I'm probably giving them too much credit when I say "forget" - chances are that they're well aware of this and that they're deliberately misrepresenting and oversimplifying in order to bolster their own claims.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
Re: It's called "sleeze"
Date: 2008-07-27 10:19 am (UTC)FWIW, it *is* a ruling against liberty, but that's not automatically a bad thing; I think this is a classic case of "your right to swing your fist ends where my face starts". People all too often forget that while freedom's important, so's non-interference, and in fact, the former cannot exist without the latter. Nobody would argue it should be legal to randomly beat up people you don't like, even though laws prohibiting that ARE restricting your freedom; this is really the same thing, although the beating-up occurs on an intellectual rather than physical level here.
But then, I'm probably giving them too much credit when I say "forget" - chances are that they're well aware of this and that they're deliberately misrepresenting and oversimplifying in order to bolster their own claims.