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 : Bill Clinton Scandal - SANITY CHECK -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: pezz who wrote (31979)	2/3/1999 8:34:00 PM
From: jlallen	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

"Veiled threat". Huh? That was my point. No direct threat makes this a dicey decision IMO. JLA

To: pezz who wrote (31979)	2/3/1999 9:51:00 PM
From: Bob Lao-Tse	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

re: judgment against right to life hit list web site... I think it was a necessary ruling. I tend to agree with you. In light of the past abortion provider murders, the implied purpose of the list was clear. However, there is a catch: Two hundred and seventy million people and it only takes one. This is certainly true, but the problem is that each of the other 269,999,999 of us must give up a little bit of liberty in order to protect us from that one. Sometimes we give up an exceeding small amount of liberty for a potentially substantial payoff, and sometimes we give up a pretty big chunk of liberty for a rather paltry payoff. But the real problem is that sometimes we give up what seems like an insignificant thing, but what is actually the first step in an incremental process that's going to come back around and bite us in the ass one day. I'm afraid that this ruling could potentially be one of those. That said, I still tend to believe that it was a necessary ruling. Life's that way sometimes. -BLT