--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
<big snips>
> free speech is
> not the same as freedom to say anything you want
> whenever you want.
The link I posted described the *exceptions* to free
speech. That means *all* speech is protected
*except* for under the 8 circumstances listed. The
word 'bomb' without context is most certainly not
under those exceptions. You don't seem to understand
that the burden of proof is on those who wish to take
away rights, not the ones who want to keep them.
Would you seriously like to encourage a government
where we have to justify the use of our rights before
we can take advantage of them? Saying the wrong word
in the wrong place does not justify your being
arrested. What if the police decide other words
spoken in other places warrant your arrest, and the
courts say 'yeah, sure - it will make us safer, so
we're justified in taking just a tiny bit more of
people's rights away'? That's the slippery slope.
Keep in mind we're talking about the way law abiding
citizens of the US of A are being treated- we're
innocent until proven guilty.
Which brings me to ask what you meant when you implied
that i'm using the 'slippery slope' concept to my
advantage. Do you mean that i'm out to repeal some or
all legislation until i've established some sort of
libertarian (or anarchist) utopia?
Want more stuff to argue about? Drunk driving check
points are unconstitutional also. ;)
dean
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Make international calls for as low as $.04/minute with Yahoo! Messenger
http://phonecard.yahoo.com/
