Not to be obnoxious about it, but do you have a reference for the KKK case? I know that the ACLU has defended the rights of Klan members to burn crosses, but I vaguely remember it being only on their own property. Burning on someone else's property would constitute tresspassing and vandalism, after all. :-\
The NAMBLA example, I'll quickly believe. It seems to me that as long as you don't lie, any printed material should be covered by the First Amendment. Otherwise, you run the risk of redefining journalism (something we're seeing right now with blogging) and preventing the encouragement of peaceful, though illegal, protesting. As abhorrent as I think the contents of the pamphlet you describe are, I still think they should be protected. Anyone who carries them out, however, should be castrated (for a start). May the punishment fit the crime. --Ben Sam wrote: > 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. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| 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:5:156924 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
