Constraints on free speech aka political correctness has corrupted our language and our ability to say what we mean. Most people understand that Orwellian newspeak means the opposite of what it says.

I believe we can communicate any thought no matter how offensive it might be to someone's uber-sensibilities, if we keep out the invective, delete the expletives and keep the discourse courteous, ceding as valid, alternate points of view.

Reasoned debate is the ticket.

erp -

Except the things you want to keep out and delete are the only things some people have, and they are the folk doing this complaining about perceived losses of freedom.

Perhaps you mean it (free speech) is "necessary, but not sufficient."

To me, it's a pretty big gray area, and I'd prefer to err on the side of speech.

While I'd be the first to agree that shouldn't enshrine a right to be rude, we live in a time when the frontiers of "false politeness" need to be harshly (dare I say rudely) pushed back.

Remember that yelling "Fire" in an packed theatre is perfectly rational if there is in fact, a fire. The Pope's measured speech and the more aggressive cartoons are good things in this context, and frankly, much more such talk is needed.

Erp: You are absolutely right.

In fact, if one's command of the language and grasp of history and literature are adequate he may say what he wills, inviting a would-be critic to attack on ground of the speaker's own choosing.

Freedom of speech should be available to more than the most erudite, however. Going back to Oliver Wendell Holmes, we may observe that while he wrote than the Constitution does not incorporate Spencer's Social Statics, he told us, in other words, that it does incorporate the Data of Ethics. Truth is found in the marketplace of ideas, and the cure for wrong speech is more speech.

This is the genius of Pope Benedict's speech: the weakness of the other side is exposed for all to see. All means all.

Another problem is that "free speech" has for too many come to mean "I must be heard", and "To criticize me is to restrict me." To that first end, they are willing to force others to listen, and even pay for the privilege. What they've failed to grasp is that hearing and listening and understanding are not equivalent. As for the second, that's where the rudeness and incivility kick in. WIthout any feedback, how do they know when they've gone too far? They don't. (Or in the case of some, they don't want to know, because that's the only message they wish to convey.) Combining both you come up with the flag burner or the heckler or the "protestor", for whom the proper response is to shut them down, forceably if necessary, because they are not engaged in speech, but intimidation and suppression and mob violence.

(Combine everything antithetical to "free speech", and you come up with Senator Keating-McCain '008.)

Holmes really causes me a lot of theoretical anxiety. At his best, he manages to be both degraded and sublime.

Of course, the more time he spent around the socialists and liberals, the more contemptible he became. Remember, this is the man responsible for all the talk about rights....

He was also the American Ubermensch.

Which is quite remarkable when you think about it.

Raul, to the contrary. McCain-Feingold is right in line with mainstream "free speech" thought as engendered by Holmes. The proponents of McC-F would argue that by removing money and especially Corporate money from politics, they are increasing "free speech". That is, speech by individuals. Of course, you must assume that speech does not = money and that it is possible an advisable to remove corporations from the political arena.

Lou, I respectfully disagree that one must be as erudite as you are in order to engage in reasoned discourse. Few, even among the bros, could meet that high standard.

However, I think that all who engage in free speech, no matter their intellectual and educational level, must be prepared to defend their arguments politely and if criticizing others, make sure they don't engage in ad hominem attacks of the genre, "and your mother wears combat boots," which is the left's favorite debating tactic.

Former President Clinton, one of the best politicians in recent history per our host, served up a textbook illustration of leftist debating techniques this past weekend. Dearth of facts and lots of invective.

We've allowed the them to set the rules of engagement. They say there is no absolute truth and feelings trump facts and we don't say clearly and unequivocally -- you're wrong and be prepared to argue the point chapter and verse (a little religious lingo).

It is more than passing strange to see the same people who deny there is such a thing as truth go on to assert it will emerge from a cacophony of folks yelling out their ignorance and insulting prejudices.

They don't. The people "who deny there is such a thing as truth" are now in favor of censorship.

The problem with PC was not that it was restrictive, but that it was restrictive in a way contrary to the dominant cultural. It was nothing more than a weapon meant to destroy "white male christians" as a coherent group. Witness the shock and silence when their boy Clinton was caught up in the attempted purge.

Free speech, i.e. political, scientific, philosophical speech, is the pathway to truth. What kind of speech are you referring to, Peter? Only that which meets your standards of civility and with which you agree?

Tom, when did you become a secular liberal? Don't know about the heavy stuff, but you've got the taunts down pat.