@The Other Steve (aka “dickwad”)

No one said, “Freedom comes with responsibility to only use it for things that I think are OK”. I think the idea is that speech needs to be limited when, in the eyes of the demos, it is being used against the common good or to unjustly harm a minority group. Are you clever enough to see the difference between this idea and the one you are throwing a fit about? You also assert one shouldn’t suggest that speech needs to be used responsibly because doing so makes one look like a “prick.” In other words, you assert that it is indecorous to say that speech needs to be responsible. How bizarre is that? You write an indecorous message and then suggest decorousness should regulate the speech behavior of those who don’t agree with you about the meaning of “free speech.” You then state, “That's the real power of freedom of speech in any form, it allows really stupid people to unmask themselves for all to see,” and for this I must commend you, for your statements themselves give us such a wonderful example of the principle. I am not sure if you are “immune” to logic, but at the least you’ve made it obvious that you are ignorant of it.

@Rob

".... it's an ideal not a given, so stop banding it around like we're all entitled to it, some of us clearly shouldn't be entitled to it, especially if their main aim is to use it to harm others."

Oh for fucks sake, another one of the "Freedom comes with responsibility to only use it for things that I think are OK" idiots.

I'd argue the toss with you, but I really can't be arsed, you're clearly immune to logic.

I love it when you sad fuckers make this argument, never seeming to realise what an utter prick you are making of yourselves in the process.

That's the real power of freedom of speech in any form, it allows really stupid people to unmask themselves for all to see.

Carry on, dickwad.