You're right, Kimm. Frank has a 1st-Amendment right to self-expression
on a matter of public interest.
And so do I. My opinion is that people who are constantly badgering
their neighbors in print, by name, are behaving poorly as neighbors.
Some people on UC-list seem to have a notion that there are two classes
of neighbors: those whom it is socially acceptable to attack in public,
in writing, and those whom it isn't. Invariably, these attackers hold
they themselves belong to the second class while their favorite victims
belong to the first class.
I totally disagree. If you examine my posts, you will find I never
criticize any neighbor on UC-list unless that neighbor has repeatedly,
and with flimsy evidence, slurred other neighbors on this list. Often
these critics complain I am "bullying" them. But I am merely doing to
them what they have already been dishing out to others!
Yes, the Constitution did appoint me gatekeeper of bad behavior in
public. It also appointed you, and everyone else on this list,
gatekeeper of bad behavior in public.
-- Tony West
Tony,
You are so out of line.
No, as a private citizen who chooses to exercise his right of
self-expression on a matter of public interest, Frank is not obligated
to bare his personal, private information in order to gain passage to
some right to express his opinion. His right to express his opinion
and speak his mind on any matter that pops into his head is protected
by the First Amendment of the US Constitution, and the last I checked
the Constitution did not appoint you gatekeeper to check the
credentials of who can express their opinions or whose opinions matter.
Kimm
----
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to the
list named "UnivCity." To unsubscribe or for archive information, see
<http://www.purple.com/list.html>.
