On 10/12/07, Andy Sutton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Speech to drown out another speaker, violating their right to free > > speech > > All can be falsified, which passes my litmus test.
Well when you make it onto the Supreme Court I'll give a shit about your litmus tests, until then I'll rely on the current and past Supreme Court cases... > The last involves > the use of force to prevent the exercise of a right, which is a > different problem all together. It hasn't been tried yet, actually... but I expect it to. As soon as conservative students decide to be assholes and start shouting down liberal guest speakers. > > Each "community" is capable of setting up their own rules and, in > > fact, COULD outlaw "booing" if they wanted. > > What an interesting take on freedom. Its been that way since the beginning. Its why 2LiveCrew would get arrested in one Florida county and be allowed to perform in another. If you don't like the standards your community enforces you're free to move or try and change it. Why are you in this argument if you don't understand the basics, like community standards?! Hell, that was even covered in Valdis' favorite reference on the 1st Amendment - "The People vs. Larry Flynt" (1996)!!! > > > The "speech" being specifically protected, and this is a point so > > often lost on morons, is POLITICAL speech. > > And what is lost on you is the absurdity of classifying speech into > clever little buckets. There is no difference between political speech > and any other opinion or preference. 200+ years of this country's history has divided up the types of speech, sir, not I. _______________________________________________ Fun and Misc security discussion for OT posts. https://linuxbox.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/funsec Note: funsec is a public and open mailing list.
