A democracy is all about
allowing dissenting voices.
Actually, Watts uses the «fair play» to claim the higher moral ground: «See, * I *
allow dissenting voices!»
Not exact matches
In a centered set conversation, all are
allowed to speak and have their say, even
dissenting voices such as yours.
While the proceedings are, understandably, a bit self - serving (you might be led to believe that all twelve films are «good»), they also
allow for
dissenting voices to point out the silliness of «Jason X» and offer ways that «Freddy vs. Jason» could have been better (especially if it had been done earlier).
«Climate change» meaning many different things to many different people, we see different anxieties expressed not just about what «science says», but about
allowing the expression of
voices that
dissent from its edicts.
I attended a professional meeting last year in Canada and
dissenting voices (e.g., Tom Harris) were
allowed to attend and speak freely, without interruptions or ridicule.
Last Thursday, Laurence Tubiana, a French diplomat who worked on the agreement, provided what sounded like a
dissenting voice to E&E News, arguing that under the deal a country is not
allowed to decrease its commitment.
The First Amendment protects counter-demonstrators, and they can
voice their
dissent, but no one is
allowed to disrupt the other.