An essay on the boundaries/standards of free speech by David van Mill makes a very interesting point with respect to the 'slippery slope' argument and free speech:

"The slippery slope argument is that we should not limit free speech because once we do we will slide our way into tyranny and censorship. Such arguments assume that we can be on or off the slope. In fact, no such choice exists: we are necessarily on the slope whether we like it or not, and the task is always to decide how far up or down we choose to go, not whether we should step off altogether.

It is worth noting that the slippery slope argument can be used to make the opposite point; one could argue with equal force that we should never allow any removal of government involvement with the action of individuals because once we do we are on the slippery slope to anarchy, the state of nature, and a life that Hobbes described in Leviathan as 'solitary, poore, nasty, brutish, and short.'"

I tend to agree with him; laws determine not the existence of the 'slope,' but its incline.

- Q.

great point...


so... how do we measure this incline?

:)



Fight the scientific measurement!