One reporter reacts to JKR's revelations

[colebiancardi]

--- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, random832 at ... wrote:
>
> > colebiancardi:
> > 
> > In the US, it under how we define freedom and rights: "Your rights end
> > where mine begin". So, if your view of defending the truth or sound
> > moral judgement is trampling on my rights,
> > then it is bigotry and prejudice.
> 
> And no matter how poisonous one's beliefs might be, if the manner in
> which they are expressed does not harm anyone, their exercise of their
> right to free speech is far from that limit. There is no right against
> being offended, at all.
> 
> Honestly, even the concept is flawed - when two people's beliefs - or
> actions, are in contradiction of each other, saying "your rights end
> where mine begin" isn't enough - because, a bigot could just as easily
> say that _YOUR_ right to, for example, have a non-straight orientation,
> ends where _HIS_ claimed "right" to not have to see or hear about it
> begins. If there is an objective definition of who has what rights, this
> is not it.
> 
> A view cannot trample on rights, only an action can do that. Now, that
> doesn't mean that views cannot be considered bigotry/prejudice, either,
> in any case - just the whole idea that it's trampling on your rights, or
> that they don't have a right to hold those beliefs, is false.
> 
> --Random832
> -- 
> Random832
>

hate speech:
In the United States, government is broadly forbidden by the First
Amendment of the Constitution from restricting speech. Jurists
generally understand this to mean that the government cannot regulate
the content of speech, but that it can address the harmful effects of
speech through laws such as those against defamation or incitement to
riot.

it is a fine line.  Many countries have laws dealing with hate speech.  


>> A view cannot trample on rights, only an action can do that

Views can and have lead to actions.  History has proven that.  

colebiancardi