To: ChinuSFO who wrote (120773 ) 9/15/2012 1:03:52 PM From: brushwud Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 149317 So you want your right to say such things to me. But you detest my saying what I said and want to muzzle me. Where do you get that I want to "muzzle" you? You said free speech was "nonsense", so I pointed out that you can go somewhere else if you don't like it. I disagree with what you say, but I defend anyone's right to free speech. Most immigrants that I've met who've gone through the naturalization process have a better understanding of U. S. civil rights than citizens who went through our schools. But you seem to think the rights in the Constitution are all wrong and shouldn't apply in the 21st century. What did you come here for, because we have great universities (based on free speech) or because this is a great place to make money? When I read the Cairo embassy statement saying "we condemn efforts to offend" by "abuse" of free speech, I thought of efforts to ban books in the last century and came across these quotes in a web page about Banned Books Week, which is coming up: As Supreme Court Justice William J. Brennan, Jr., in Texas v. Johnson , said most eloquently: "If there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment, it is that the government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable." If we are to continue to protect our First Amendment, we would do well to keep in mind these words of Noam Chomsky: "If we don't believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don't believe in it at all." Or these words of Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas (" The One Un-American Act ." Nieman Reports , vol. 7, no. 1, Jan. 1953, p. 20): "Restriction of free thought and free speech is the most dangerous of all subversions. It is the one un-American act that could most easily defeat us."ala.org (William O. Douglas was kind of like the Antonin Scalia of the 1960s.)