I have to go to bed- 1am here, Rob.

See you around.

Reciprocity. Treat others as you expect yourself to be treated.

As well as do what you want as long you don't harm or interfere with others.

They are my principles.

_________________
You may say I'm a dreamer.... but I'm not the only one....

Goodnite

_________________
You may say I'm a dreamer.... but I'm not the only one....

Then you really have no answer, as those are really a red herring and a platitude.
What would you say to a principle which said that whilst challenging another person's beliefs was acceptable, simply insulting therm was not?
Or that freedom of speech does not include the right to make utterances which you know would cause another person actual harm, unless there was an overwhelming case for the public good?

_________________
Where there is great doubt, there will be great awakening; small doubt, small awakening, no doubt, no awakening.

A red herring in which argument?

They are certainly not platitudes. The key issue here is one of reciprocity.



I would say that it is impossible to govern such a principle. If someone makes a baseless insult against me then I just shrug it off.

I could be insulted by someone pointing out an uncomfortable truth to me, which would challenge my beliefs. I would be against such a concept in every shape or form.




As I said, do no harm to others....

Nothing to do with what I have been saying so I am unsure where this is going.

_________________
You may say I'm a dreamer.... but I'm not the only one....

I'm trying to see what your position actually is. To be honest, it isn't clear.

_________________
Where there is great doubt, there will be great awakening; small doubt, small awakening, no doubt, no awakening.

I said 'treat others as you expect to be treated' is a red herring.
That's because it isn't a principle, although it's wrapped up to look like one.
Your actions are your responsibility, they can't be predicated or excused on the sensitivities and prejudices/caprices of another person. You have to decide what is acceptable and what isn't according to principle.

_________________
Where there is great doubt, there will be great awakening; small doubt, small awakening, no doubt, no awakening.

You're not helping your case by blurring religion and race.

You said
"As I said, do no harm to others.... "

Then you must first define harm. Is it acceptable to harm in a good cause? Is there a public good defence? How about the utilitarian argument?

_________________
Where there is great doubt, there will be great awakening; small doubt, small awakening, no doubt, no awakening.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/principle




I was looking at it as a moral principle, 'One should treat others as one would like others to treat oneself.

Would you like to clarify what you meant by principle?

_________________
You may say I'm a dreamer.... but I'm not the only one....

All of the above.

A set of guiding thoughts.

_________________
Where there is great doubt, there will be great awakening; small doubt, small awakening, no doubt, no awakening.

That people are responsible for their own actions. You have no right to kill people or threaten them with violence because you take offense at what they say. You may enter a vigorous debate with them however threats of violence are off the cards from either party.

If someone directly threatens you then you may take defensive action.

Muslims need to learn to take these cartoons on the chin. They are free to respond with caricatures that offend the other side.

If people cannot take responsibility for themselves, by not threatening others, then they need to have that responsibility forced on them for, as you say, the public good.

_________________
You may say I'm a dreamer.... but I'm not the only one....

Reciprocity governs nearly everything I do. As you have stated that you are not religious, I am sincerely intrigued upon what principles you base your morals on?

_________________
You may say I'm a dreamer.... but I'm not the only one....

But I'm asking about freedom of speech.
Yes, people must be held to be responsible for their own actions unless by mental incapacity of any kind they are deemed not to be so. I think that's a given for any form of civilised society.
The reaction is not really germane, except inasmuch as provoking a reaction on purpose is or isn't an acceptable use of free speech.
What sorts of things are people free to say, in principle? What, if any, are the limits to free speech?


Principle? You have a right to personal security and may infringe another person's right to the same if the cause you harm?


That's not really a principle about freedom of speech. In fact it isn't a principle at all, because whatever you decide free speech is will apply equally to both sides of the debate.


Clearly so, but not really the principles behind free speech.

Would you agree that the individual has the right to act in any manner which does not infringe the rights of another citizen?

_________________
Where there is great doubt, there will be great awakening; small doubt, small awakening, no doubt, no awakening.

Anything, that does not directly threaten another individual.



You have a right to take appropriate defensive action when threatened. That's the principle.



It most certainly is a principle of freedom of speech with reciprocity. That is exactly what it highlights. Free speech does apply to both sides in a debate. Of course you are free to ignore the other person.

The line is drawn when one side starts directly threatening the other with harm.




Then we get into a discussion about 'rights', which unfortunately can be subjective.

I showed you my guiding principles. The rights that I grant others is I expect others to treat me they way I treat them, as well as doing others no harm...

_________________
You may say I'm a dreamer.... but I'm not the only one....