one plus seven plus fifteen plus twenty-four plus thirty-three

the chilling effect is a well-documented by-product of a politically correct society in which ordinary citizens fear reprisals from state actors - namely, the police and the courts - stemming from words spoken or actions taken that may ultimately offend others. but isn't that exactly what the fundamental freedom known as freedom of expression was designed to protect? the freedom to potentially offend others. for if we are unable to offend others, what could that hard-earned freedom have possibly been intended to buttress? the freedom to utter trite and hackneyed truisms? the freedom to mumble innocuous and time-honoured cliches? not in my liberal democracy. no, the freedom to say or write whatever you like, whenever you like, to whomever you like is just as important as the right to elect one's political representatives, in my humble estimation. ever more so, if you take into account the fact that without an unfettered flow of ideas and arguments, the ability to reach an informed opinion as to the pith and substance of one's democratic leaders is made that much more difficult. and what irks me more than anything in this tiresome debate over the degree of restrictions placed on one's freedom of expression is the self-serving nature of the discussion. for isn't it always the case that limitations on freedom of expression are inevitably called for by those seeking to limit the expressions of others due to some perceived slight or affront. isn't it always the case that in the end, the controversy ultimately comes down to a question of where the lines should be drawn for someone other than ourselves.

now as to the question of whether or not there should be any legal restrictions placed on one's written or spoken conveyances ... well, of course there should be. for example, those guilty of maliciously gutting another's reputation via the dissemination of known fabrications should be subjected to the full extent of the law - both criminal and civil. but where no measurable injury or damage exists - other than hurt feelings or bruised egos, that is - the state has no business intervening in the private exchanges of its adult citizenry. for the intellectual and emotional immaturity of those who cling to the pant leg of existing sanctions against clearly objectionable transmissions is hardly deserving of state support in what amounts to nothing more than a battle of competing ideologies. and for those who routinely attempt to enlist the aid of judicial interventions in the defence of their personal version of the truth, i have but three words for you: grow up already.

"i disapprove of what you say, but i will defend to the death your right to say it." - attributed to voltaire

step off