On Thu, 01 Nov 2007 13:16:58 -0400, SODDI wrote:
> As for public "free speech"? That WAS a nice idea, wasn't it? But, in
the
> days of "designated demonstration" zones and "don't tase me bro", I
think
> that part of the Constitution has been relegated to the status of more
of a
> general set of suggestions than an principle.
Do you consider harassment and disruption to be just "free speech?"
There is such a concept as appropriate venue. If you are trying to
speak and I succeed in shouting you down, haven't I impinged YOUR right
to free speech? The Phelps were and are free to protest about anything
they
like in, for example, a public park, or preferably the middle of a cypress
swamp in the Everglades, but when they follow someone to a function in
order to be disruptive, then we have a big problem. What the Phelps' do is
to twist and abuse the idea of free speech with the intent of doling out
punishment to those who they feel have offended their god in some way.
They have no right to do that.
--
scalpod: How long can one reasonably expect to live without kidneys?
Huey: That depends. How many coffee filters can you hold between your
knees?
|
