ok so, all those lunch counter sit-ins and public transportation boycotts in the south in the sixties... those were against the constitution? Those people should have been locked up without the benefit of their constitutional rights?? I am not equating NAMBLA with Martin Luther King mind you, just making the point that at times breaking the law may in fact *be* free speech.
I also have to say that I don't know that the description of NAMBLA is accurate -- this is obviously a partisan account, one side of a court proceeding. Dana On 5/10/05, G <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Huh??!? The constitution gives no protection to groups who openly advocate > breaking the law. In fact, when these groups "break the law"....just exactly > what laws do you think they are breaking? > > Yep, the Constitution. > > Free speech means you have the right to say anything you want....but not the > right to be exempt from all consequences of said speech. > > Sounds like you don't know anything about the Constitution you > "support"..... > > > Supporting NAMBLA and the KKK is an unfortunate side effect of > > supporting the Constitution. Sounds like you don't support the > > Constitution. > > > > -Kevin > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Find out how CFTicket can increase your company's customer support efficiency by 100% http://www.houseoffusion.com/banners/view.cfm?bannerid=49 Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:5:156885 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/5 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:5 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.5 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
