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.

Pastimes : THE SLIGHTLY MODERATED BOXING RING -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: one_less who wrote (19734)	8/23/2002 4:02:36 PM
From: Lane3	Respond to of 21057

Verbal assault should be actionable. IMO. I won't argue with you. I will just point out that I have not been talking about the parameters or merits of free speech in the general sense. I'm talking about the what is or isn't tolerable in terms of ideas, and to some extent behaviors, in this boxing ring. They are not the same thing.

To: one_less who wrote (19734)	8/23/2002 4:11:26 PM
From: Lazarus_Long	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 21057

Verbal assault should be actionable. IMO. What do you mean by "verbal assault"? If I call TP a lying SOB, is that verbal assault? How about if I say that about Bush? Clinton? If I say Clinton lied about having sex with Monica, is that verbal assault? How about one of Vidrine's harangues against Jews? Or one the equivalent harangues against Muslims that have been posted? That slope you're standing on is mighty slippery. I like that Supreme Court's stance (at least until now); If the exercise of free speech does not create clear and present danger of violence, it's legal. Remember, any ground you abandon, the gov't will happily take.