What they SHOULD do is say why they disagree....
Would be nice:-)
I personally don't see much difference between the government silencing someone and an interest group or individual silencing someone. Neither should be done. This is in general of course, there are bound to be exceptions for the public good. But then again, who gets to decide what is for the public good?
Let me see if I can explain the difference. Government has the authority to deprive individuals of life, liberty, and property. Individuals do not possess this authority. Attempts to do so are generally criminal (or at least invoke civil liability). Government can pre-emptively disrupt speech (IE by inprisonment or execution) or punish it after the fact. An individual can not lawfully do so. Thus, government poses a potentially enormous obstacle to the exercise of free expression. The government could, for example, ban the word "some" and make it punishable by death. Individuals would *never* have this authority. Thus, our founding fathers wisely chose to limit or republican democracy by placing outer boundaries on what our government can do.
It doesn't necessarily make you hypocritical, but it is likely to make you look petty and only alienate the person you disagree with. If you call someone an idiot they will almost NEVER see your point or listen to what you have to say, it's really self defeating. If you really want to have an honest and open discussion calling someone any name is a surefire way to prevent that from happening, whether the name is accurate or not.
Unless your point is to demonize or belittle your opponent so as to polarize your supporters. Democrats and Republicans do it all the time to one another. Where do you think terms like "tax and spend liberal" and the "right wing conspiracy" come from?
-James (becomes more and more disgusted with politicos the more he learns, though he will still defend their right to be heard)
Senseless rhetoric... are you saying that to be objectionable, an idea has to be true? That people everywhere can only be swayed by truth? If that's the case, we have no need to fear demagogues or charismatic dictators... obviously, whatever they profess to believe in must be true if it brings them to power.
As far as the virtue of being silenced by a special interest group... you're absolutely right. However, precious few special interest groups run around silencing people. The idea that they do is pure propaganda. Fact is, "special interest groups" don't have the power or authority to shut people's speech down.
A radically conservative speaker is scheduled to give a speech at a college campus. Liberal groups object to the university giving air to what they see as his nonsense. They protest. The university changes its mind and unschedules the speaker.
Where is the silencing? It wasn't the liberal groups that uninvited the speaker... it was the university. And don't the liberal groups have a right to protest? Doesn't the university have a right to make a decision about whom to give a forum, based on whatever criteria it feels is best? The liberals exercised their rights, the university exercised its rights, and the speaker is still perfectly free to exercise his rights.