Priror restraint of speech may something be physical restraint but
that is not what is usally means, it can be a gag order upon crimnal
and or civil penalities if you ignore the gag order. You can have a
law that say's you can't say anything untrue about a person if harm
occurs but that is not necessarilly a gag order if harm must be
proven in court, un true would also have to be
proven.
Saying that a fast food place must not deny service to someone
because of their color, sex, faith etc would be priror restraint
based on just those facts, the burden of prove would be on the
government to why the fast food place must serve, the burden is not
on the fast food place to prove why they can deny service.--- In
[email protected], "uncoolrabbit" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> When did I say there was Terry. I never even typed the words "prior
> restraint" in the confines of this forumn. I do get a warm fuzzy
> feeling all over knowing that you read enuff of my posts to respond
> to them though, like I just had a 'big cup of cocoa' mmm.
>
> It would be rather dificult to impose prior restraint on speech,
> what would one do to restrain speech prior to its action, put jaw
> locks on every one and require all speech be submited in writting
> before authorization for release of said jaw lock.
>
> The only restraint on free speech is knowing your accountable for
> everything you say, and some do not even understand a thing as
> simple as that, leaving them utterly unrestrained. Wether I agree
or
> not with what they say, I can say I am glad to be an American
> because of it.
>
> --- In [email protected], "Terry L Parker" <txliberty@>
> wrote:
> >
> > UncoolRabbit, there is NO 'prior restraint' of one's exercise
> > of 'free speech' allowed by the USA Constitution!
> >
> > American IDEAL theory is for one to exercise one's freedom
> > AND deal with consequences; good or bad.
> >
> > -Terry Liberty Parker
> > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian
> >
> >
> > --- In [email protected], "uncoolrabbit"
<uncoolrabbit@>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Freedom of association is great and all, but like all things
how
> > > does it apply to reality. Slander and liabl are not protected
by
> > > free speach, just as descrimination is not protected by freedom
> of
> > > association.
> > >
> > > Now, if your a public resteraunt, you have chosen to associate
> with
> > > the public. If your a private club, you have chosen to
associate
> > > with your members.
> > >
> > > In my opinion, liberty applys to all races. however in the
> opinion
> > > of many people here, I am not a Libertarian. So the decision is
> up
> > > to you, what do you think a Libertarian society would offer
> > > minorities.
> > >
> > > --- In [email protected], "zmaitreya11"
<zmaitreya11@>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > --- In [email protected], Cory Nott <corynott@>
> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > If a small town restaurant doesn't want to serve African-
> > > > Americans, is it worth the cost of forcing them to do so?
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Also, I wonder how strongly do you believe in the First
> > > > Amendment. I suppose free speech is important to you, right?
> > Well,
> > > > what about the freedom of association? Is that not as
> important,
> > > or
> > > > are some rights less inherent or more rightfully trampled by
> > > > government intervention? A person should be free to
associate,
> in
> > > > his or her property or business, with whomever he or she
> pleases.
> > > > Some people will choose not to associate with members of
> another
> > > > race. I choose not to associate with racists.
> > > > >
> > > > > Cory
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Okay, some interesting points by Cory and others. Maybe I
> should
> > > > have used a better example, not that I am convinced yet over
> the
> > > > restaurant example. People do have a right to associate with
> who
> > > > they want and also the right not to associate.
> > > >
> > > > But eating out and enjoying the use of various businesses is
> also
> > > a
> > > > right and a freedom. It is denied in the case of a racist
> > > business
> > > > owner. How about the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit
> of
> > > > happiness? Happiness could be defined by the right and
> ability
> > to
> > > > use various businesses.
> > > >
> > > > Now let's take a more important example, work. In a
> Libertarian
> > > > world could a business owner discriminate against minorities
> for
> > > > hiring? I am not talking about quotas or affirmative action,
> > just
> > > > getting a job if you are the most qualified and also a
> minority.
> > > > What if again, like the restaurant example, the business
owner
> > did
> > > > not want to hire the minority and stood to make more money by
> not
> > > > hiring him and not losing his regular racist customers?
> > > >
> > > > Are minorities just out of luck in a Libertarian world? I
see
> at
> > > > this time from the other posts, that one Libertarian
> politician
> > > has
> > > > just left the party over the racism issues.
> > > >
> > > > Libertarians appear to be focused on liberties and freedom,
> but
> > > how
> > > > about the freedom to go into any business, the freedom to get
> a
> > > job
> > > > when you are the most qualified, the freedom to earn a
living,
> > the
> > > > freedom to pursue happiness?
> > > >
> > > > Or does that just apply to members of the majority race?
> > > >
> > > > David
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
ForumWebSiteAt http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian/
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
