Traitorfish
The Tighnahulish Kid
But those are not natural distinctions. There is nothing in the moral fabric of the universe to distinguish "good" speech from "bad" speech.Fraud is theft, thats a constraint on a victim's property and the time and effort they sacrificed to obtain it. Libel laws are based on the notion of injurious speech, lies resulting in a victim's monetary loss.
Nobody actually uses the word "free speech" like that, though. If they did, then "free exercise of religion" would only tell us that some religions are legally tolerated, not that there was a general policy of religious toleration, or "freedom of assembly" to mean that people can assemble when the government says its okay. It's a post hoc rationalisation that runs contrary to the way English is actually spoken.You'll have to rephrase that, there is a difference between speech and free speech. The word free has a definition and that places limits on the definition of speech.
It seems terribly unjust to guns rights activists to suggest that they spend their weekends dressed up in paraphernalia, marching around other people's towns as a self-appointed militia.I saw a few gun rights activists defending themselves in the midst of a riot, you saw violent Nazis.
You suggested that territorial behaviour suggested some sort of moral reasoning. I don't think that a lion, say, is operating on quite that level of abstraction.Was this in response to something I said? I see the quote you chose but I dont see the connection.