SI
SI
discoversearch

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 : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: epicure who wrote (30321)2/18/2004 1:15:23 PM
From: Neeka  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 793690
 
So you are saying that attacking innocent onlookers and destroying public and private property are just all included in the right to free speech, and that society had just better accept that fact because if police/government try to stop it in any way they will be subject to lawsuits. Not only that, but it's probably considered free speech when protesters drown out the speech of someone trying to convey a message.

IMO there is no reason to make this personal, so I'm not going there with you, but I can't wait for the ACLU lawsuit. Please link us to it when it happens OK?

M



To: epicure who wrote (30321)2/18/2004 10:15:10 PM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 793690
 
"One example- locking one side of a debate behind a fence
with their signs, one block or many blocks away from
public figures they want to protest, is actionable. The
ACLU will fight this."

Their right to assemble was not taken away, nor their
right to freely express themselves. Parties on both sides
of the debate were able to assemble & have their debates
heard.

And the liberal media made sure we heard the anti-Bush,
anti-war side loud & clear.


HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News