On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 9:18 PM, Dana <[email protected]> wrote:
> > ok but suppose you are debating somone online. Kinda like this, except that > one of us is in a library, And say the other person is you and you call me > a > terrorist. We're still debating though, because I have learned to expect > that from you. As I read it, that conversation is at that point reportable. > In fact MUST be reported if the lirary knows about it. What does that so to > our debate? > > The law itself is not debate, silly. And which do you think i am more > afraid > of, Guantanamo or Obama having my email address? I hate to tell you this > Robert, but he already does because of the online elections donations. > what the heck are you talking about, a theoretical debate or the actual law? let's stick to the actual law today. funny thing, apparently the law today (a law written in response to Nixon's shenanigans with anti-war protesters) says that the Executive Branch can't record the names, images, or statements of people's expressions of free speech without explicit statutory allowance. So the health czar is violating federal law by receiving these "misinformation" tips at [email protected]. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Want to reach the ColdFusion community with something they want? Let them know on the House of Fusion mailing lists Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:301640 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5
