FUCK From: Ronn!Blankenship <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
FUCK At 11:47 PM 3/12/04, The Fool wrote: > > From: Damon Agretto <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > > > Yes. The IDEA that Freedom of Speech means a > > > person is allowed to say > > > > F**K whenever and whereever they FUCKING want to, > > > or need to. > > > > > > Try again. There is no constitutional protection of > > > your right to say FUCK. > > > > Besides the fact that its discourteous to others, who > > may not want to read this, or have it exposed to their > >Like I give a flying FUCK what you think is right? FUCK Yes, it comes with being a member of a civilization . . . FUCK > > children. And again, I would challenge the Fool: You > > say this is against the IDEA of Freedom of Speech, yet > > in no way did you describe what that is, even after > > others (myself included) have shown that our > > interpretation is much different than yours. > >You are wrong. If the words of the amendment don't mean what they say in >when they say in unequivocal terms "Congress shall make no >law...abridging the freedom of speech", then they have no meaning at all >whatsoever. > >--- >"The whole problem with this idea of obscenity and indecency, and all of >these things � bad language and whatever � it's all caused by one basic >thing, and that is: religious superstition. FUCK The First Amendment also guarantees in unequivocal terms to every American the right to freely exercise his or her own brand of "religious superstition": FUCK "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;" FUCK > ... There's an idea that the >human body is somehow evil and bad and there are parts of it that are >especially evil and bad, and we should be ashamed. Fear, guilt and shame >are built into the attitude toward sex and the body. ... It's reflected >in these prohibitions and these taboos that we have." > >-George Carlin on Fascist Censorship FUCK So what do we do when X's right to free speech conflicts with Y's right to freely exercise his or her religion? (You and Mr. Carlin seem to have adequately addressed the converse of that question.) When unequivocal rights conflict, one or the other has to be limited. Does that mean that none of the rights guaranteed in the Constitution have any meaning at all whatsoever? FUCK ---- All Relgious freedom rights stem from free speech rights. Without free speech rights their are no Religious Freedom rights. Free speech rights are more important than Religious Freedom Rights and more fundamental. I claim it my religious right to say FUCK, FUCK-YOU, FUCKING, FUCKER, MOTHER-FUCKER, FUCK-OFF, SHIT, DAMN, GOD-DAMN, DAMN-YOU, DAMN-IT, MORMON, and the rest. ---- ---- "As first and moderate methods to attain unity have failed, those bent on its accomplishment must resort to an ever-increasing severity. . . . . Those who begin coercive elimination of dissent soon find themselves exterminating dissenters. . . . [T]he First Amendment to our Constitution was designed to avoid these ends by avoiding these beginnings." � West Va. State Bd. of Ed. v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943) (Jackson, J.). "You need only reflect that one of the best ways to get yourself a reputation as a dangerous citizen these days is to go about repeating the very phrases which our founding fathers used in the struggle for independence." -Charles Austin Beard _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
