At 5:56 PM -0700 9/2/05, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >Content-type: text/html; charset=us-ascii >Content-language: en >Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT >Content-disposition: inline > >Mine was a pin-pointed question. I am glad that Bhubanda of UK has >set forth a fitting reply. "Rights," in any democracy, are not >unfettered.
**** I don't know that anyone one dispute that. BUT, 'incendiery', 'inflamatory' etc. are adjectives that mean little, unless they are DEFINED. >Inflammatory speech that is calculated as a call to the murder of, >and violence >against innocents has never been considered protected >speech under the First >Amendment clause of the US Constitution. **** I wonder where Pat Robertson's call to assassinate Chavez of Venezuela would fall. If I remember correctly,the great leader of democracy and its self-appointed standard bearer around the globe , GWB, said that Pat Robertson is entitled to his opinion -- that simple. Was it in defense of free speech or was it in defense of political expediency? That is the conundrum of the day. Just like the Australian question that is. >Therefore, free speech has its own parameters. The Supreme Court of >the US had already expressed the principle that there were limits to >excercising the right of free speech. In fact, in a case >titled, Schenck versus US, the SC of the US opined that " The most >stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man falsely >shouting fire in a crowded theatre and causing a panic." >Inflammatory speech that is calculated as a call to the murder of, >and violence against innocents has never been considered protected >speech under the First Amendment clause of the US Constitution. > >KJD. > > >_______________________________________________ >assam mailing list >[email protected] >http://assamnet.org/mailman/listinfo/assam_assamnet.org _______________________________________________ assam mailing list [email protected] http://assamnet.org/mailman/listinfo/assam_assamnet.org
