No. I rejected your point as silly and not part of the debate.
You haven't rejected my point. You rejected my tool for forcing you to recognize my point. You have clearly acknowledged that, while we have a free speech right to express our opinions, that doesn't mean that we get to do it in the Oval Office, which means we don't get to do it wherever and whenever we want. We can't interrupt a class to pray out loud. We can't hold a protest march where we disrupt traffic or the protest march of someone else who holds a permit for that space. We are not entitled to time on CBS. And we can be banned from Center. None of that suppresses our free speech right. None of that is illegal or unconstitutional.
Free Speech Zones are a limit to free speech.
Sure, these things are limits. The social contract is about accepting limits on our behavior so that civilized society rather than chaos might exist. There are limits to how much we can interfere with other people. There are limits, even, on speech.
This started out as a complaint about the suppression of free speech, which is what triggered my engagement since it is clearly about limits on rather than suppression of the right to dissent. Since you are now arguing against limits, I assume you recognize at some level, with the help of my hype mechanism <g>, that, while you are chafing at limits, suppression of free speech is not occurring.
I don't find it unreasonable for you to chafe at those limits just as I don't find it unreasonable for the Bush folks to set them. At risk is political advantage, which neither of you wants to cede. What is not at risk is free speech. |
