The Channel logo
Flame

Freedom of speech

While I understand and agree in principle with free speach meaning allowing even those you disagree with their say, society as a whole MUST impose limits. Perhaps the best known example of this is the statement "The right of free speech does not carry with it the right to shout 'Fire!' in a crowded theatre."

By Andreas Lund's argument, confidence tricksters and fraudsters would be protected in their false and misleading claims by the "right of free speech". A health-product vendor could falsely claim that some magic herb he sells cures cancer, and be protected in this claim by the "right of free speech". Obviously, for our society to function, we have to draw the line somewhere.

It has been demonstrated many times - Mr. Lund even admits it himself - that the CoS is a criminal and fraudulent organisation whose activities have destroyed lives and families. The legal system has proven powerless to destroy this organisation. Why the CoS hasn't been branded as a "terror group" or simply outlawed as a crime syndicate by now is beyond me.

Since the governments of the world are not doing anything about this obscene cult, it falls to We The People to take matters into our own hands. This is what Anonymous have done, and I fully concur with their actions. This isn't playing into the CoS's hands. It is doing something serious about ridding our society of an insidious and poisonous social disease.

Forums

Forgotten password

Opinion

euros_channel_money

Tim Worstall

Time to take a sniff at the coffee, perhaps
joe_tucci_emc_channel

Chris Mellor

Will they have to drag him back like last time?
chain_relationship_channel

Features

cloud_accounting
Playing the SLA long game
channel_teaser_money_top
cloud computing Fight
Applications must work for the cloud to float
Paul Cormier, Red Hat
How a Unix killer crawled from the dot-com bust