On Sat, 15 Sep 2001, Andy Walden wrote:
On Sat, 15 Sep 2001, David Schwartz wrote:
I think you misunderstand what free speech is and means. Freedom of speech means the right to express those ideas you wish using that which is yours to use. It does not include the right to commandeer other people's presses.
Common misconception that Freedom of Speech has anything to do with you or me and what we tell each other. Actually Freedom of Speech means freedom from governement censorship, and has nothing do with with U.S. Citizen to Citizen communications.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
I believe we were talking about the custom/concept of free speech as [supposedly practiced in the U.S.] opposed to the Constitutional "Free Speech". -- Yours, J.A. Terranson sysadmin@mfn.org If Governments really want us to behave like civilized human beings, they should give serious consideration towards setting a better example: Ruling by force, rather than consensus; the unrestrained application of unjust laws (which the victim-populations were never allowed input on in the first place); the State policy of justice only for the rich and elected; the intentional abuse and occassionally destruction of entire populations merely to distract an already apathetic and numb electorate... This type of demogoguery must surely wipe out the fascist United States as surely as it wiped out the fascist Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. The views expressed here are mine, and NOT those of my employers, associates, or others. Besides, if it *were* the opinion of all of those people, I doubt there would be a problem to bitch about in the first place... --------------------------------------------------------------------