On Mar 1, 2012, at 8:35 AM, richardsan wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 1, 2012 at 7:26 AM, TENEBRAE <[email protected]>wrote:
>
>> On Mar 1, 2012, at 12:05 AM, richardsan wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 8:41 PM, Brian Lawson <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> That would be an unconstitutional abridgment of the 1st amendment.
>>>>
>>>
>>> "unconstitutional" that's what all those smokers, who smoked wherever
>> they
>>> wanted to said, after laws were made to deny them their right to smoke.
>>
>> You're wrong on this, Richardsan.
>>
>> Smoking isn't speech, and second-hand smoke is a killer.
>>
>
> i used it an example of where peoples' manifest thought perpetuated a
> "right" to do as they please and did it, until legislation stepped
> in...slavery, women's rights, could be other examples.
And those examples would not help your argument.
>> Denying the holocaust is speech, and denying the holocaust only hurts
>> feelings, not people.
>> -W
>>
>> ...there are what, 18 countries in europe that have made this issue
>> important enough to make new laws banning it. they're wrong, as well?
I didn't serve those countries to support and defend their constitutions, nor
do I know whether or not they have equivalents of our 1st Amendment.
If they have constitutional protections for speech and subsequently pass a law
forbidding a certain type of speech, yes, they are wrong, too.
-W
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"StrataList-OT" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected].
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/stratalist-ot?hl=en.
