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 Boxing Ring Revived -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: The Philosopher who wrote (5330)	3/10/2003 12:05:26 PM
From: Solon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 7720

Something pornographic could be challenged. But "pornography" has no consistent definition, but always relates to what is "offensive" or harmful to society. I suppose that messages counselling criminal activity could be considered subversive...or counselling or planning a criminal act. I think that people who FORCIBLY disturb the peace by heckling those whom express opinions (written or verbal) to which they object, are fundamentaly guilty of attempting to impose restrictions on free opinion. If those t-shirt wearers ACTIVELY approached others and proselytized to the point of obnoxiousness, then I can apreciate their removal. But the information I have is that others accosted them for PASSIVELY expressing a written opinion on their t-shirt. You and I were not there so can only comment on our personal values as relates to what MIGHT have happened. I have shared with you my opinion, and I would be surprised (given your youthful concern for human rights) that we would have any significant disagreement in this regard.