Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : To be a Liberal,you have to believe that..... -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: truedog who wrote (1897)	9/12/1999 8:51:00 AM
From: Dayuhan	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 6418

Restrictions on any right begin at the point where the exercise of that right infringes on the rights of others. You are quite entitled to write that I am an idiot, but if you scream it inches from my face, or follow me down the streets shouting it, you have exceeded the limits of your right to free speech and I can petition for redress with a good chance of success. Somewhere between writing your message in an SI post and screaming it in my face, you encounter a limit to your rights, set at the point where my rights to be free of harassment begin. Setting these limits is the job of the court system. If the case involves the intrusion of one person's rights upon anothers, the person being intruded upon is frequently given the benefit of any grey areas, since we are a people who value our privacy. There is a distinction between political speech and personal harassment. You have a right to speak against abortion. Women have the right to avail of a legal medical procedure without personal harassment. Interpreting where the line between those rights lies is the job of the courts. You may not like the current interpretation. But I'm sure that there are many others who would not much care for the interpretation you favor.

To: truedog who wrote (1897)	9/13/1999 2:04:00 PM
From: DJB	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 6418

<<but the law,as explained here,does not make a distinction between the two vastly different groups.>> This is the problem. In reality the police would have the choice of not interfering with peaceful demonstrators, arresting demonstrators for a misdemeanor or arresting the demonstrators as terrorists if they carry bombs. The reality is that the police have a choice of laws to apply and this law is not the only law on the books. But on this thread we take one thing and act as if it is the only thing in existence. Do you really think that praying old ladies would be arrested as terrorists? I don't. <<You really need to get a grip on your feelings>> I think I have good control of my feelings and I believe my responses on this thread have been very logical and unemotional. Erase Hate, Dennis