They weren't defending their right to assemble or speak I would support that also. They wanted the KKK to have the right to burn a cross on someone's lawn as free speech and NAMBA to publish an instruction manual to rape and murder little boys.
On 5/10/05, Kevin Graeme wrote: > Different jurisdictions. General rights vs. specific legalities. > > The Constitution supports the abstract principle of free speech. In > specific cases, these groups have been prevented that generic right. > As an organization, they absolutely have a right to speak. Granted, > the specifics of their speech may be limited based on other > appropriate laws. But the Constitution still gives them the rope to > hang themselves. > > Make no mistake, I don't support the KKK or NAMBLA. I would love to > see them disappear. But if they stay within the bounds of law, then I > grudgingly support their right to assemble and speak. > > -Kevin ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Purchase Contribute 3 from House of Fusion, a Macromedia Authorized Affiliate and support the CF community. http://www.houseoffusion.com/banners/view.cfm?bannerid=53 Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:5:156916 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
