On Thursday, March 16, 2000 at 23:14:23 (-0500) Yoshie Furuhashi writes:
Bill:
In the above cases, those subject to the speech have no costless way
to avoid it. I feel that the freedom to avoid the speech must also be
present to grant protection to the speaker.
You see, you are not defending
Yoshie writes:
Should the CIA be allowed to plant stories, some of which lies, a few
of them true stories exaggerated for political purposes?
I wrote:
If we simply abolished the CIA, this issue would no longer be relevant. In
any event, freedom of speech isn't supposed to apply to the
Should the CIA be allowed to plant stories, some of which lies, a few of
them true stories exaggerated for political purposes?
If we simply abolished the CIA, this issue would no longer be relevant. In
any event, freedom of speech isn't supposed to apply to the government and
its agencies.
On Thursday, March 16, 2000 at 18:37:13 (-0500) Yoshie Furuhashi writes:
Bill wrote:
On Thursday, March 16, 2000 at 14:32:47 (-0600) Carrol Cox writes:
Perhaps it can't be
done, but I am willing to argue that so far as possible in all left
Doug Henwood wrote:
Uh, Carrol, you can say that and no one will arrest you. Of course no
one will listen to you either, but still, doesn't non-arrest count
for something?
It means *two* things:
1. Non-arrest means a hell of a lot and we should fight for keeping it
and expanding it.
2. It
