General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Let's see how intellectually honest the defenders of Charlie Hebdo are. [View all]mike_c
(37,051 posts)You know, when I was a kid the ACLU taught us that "I might hate what you have to say, but I'll defend your right to say it" isn't just an abstract ideal. In fact, as an ideal it isn't worth a damn until it's more than abstract. It's meaningless until you stand up for the right of neo-nazis to march down the streets in Jewish neighborhoods, or for the KKK to rally and spew their bile. The rubber meets the road when you're faced with ACTIONS rather than rights in the abstract.
If you've read this far, I will say that I think your example is a bit contrived. It's one thing to defend someone's right to free speech, even if offensive, but quite another to urge them to be more widely offensive. Newspapers print Charlie Hebdo covers because they're news, presently. Defending their right to do so is more a matter of press freedom than freedom of speech, and I wouldn't urge them to do so unless there was relevant news to report.
Rights don't mean shit unless the actions they permit are fully protected by the society that says it recognizes those rights.