Replies

Out of curiosity, and with no animosity intended, where is this principle found? I tend to agree with it, but what is the justification for saying it?

Well, the entire notion of "free speech" came about as a result of the idea that the government should not be able to punish someone for stating their point of view. If Lott were jailed or similarly punished by the government for those remarks that he made, that would be a free speech violation. As it happened, Lott was able to say what he wanted to. No free speech violation. Now as a result of those remarks, people have the similar right to act according to their free speech rights. They can decide what Lott's comments mean to them. That's what I mean when I say that Lott has free speech rights, but also, particularly as a public figure, he needs to be responsible for what he says. If he says something that embarasses his party, he can't escape responsibility by merely saying that he has free speech rights.