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 : Just the Facts, Ma'am: A Compendium of Liberal Fiction -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Cogito who wrote (52545)	10/30/2006 9:27:58 AM
From: mph	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 90947

I also didn't say I dislike the notion of situational ethics. I just don't like the hypocritical way in which the Right uses that phrase against the Left. You used it in that way, and I responded, after responding fully on the original subject. I don't care if that "gets it" with you or not. Hyprocrisy is in the eye of the beholder as well. As for free speech, NOW you're saying this: As for your views on the First Amendment vis a vis First, I was not saying what you say I seemed to be saying, and I am not responsible for your misinterpratation. I don't believe that First Amendment rights should be applied depending on the motivation of the speaker, and I think I stated that clearly. However, what you "clearly" said before was this: I completely agree that First Amendment rights apply regardless of whether or not I agree with the speaker/writer/publisher/whatever. For example, I agree with the ACLU that Neo-Nazi groups should be allowed to have marches, as long as they don't threaten anyone. Naturally, I abhor what they stand for, but I believe they have a right to speak and demonstrate. But I'm not sure I agree that they should be applied regardless of motive or subterfuge. If they were, then slander and libel wouldn't be illegal. Then there's the question of fraud, which might apply in a case like the one I described.