>>>>> "U" == Udhay Shankar N <Udhay> writes:
U> At 12:32 PM 12/28/00 -0600, Adam Rifkin wrote:
>> I repeat, IBM 76.8Gb ultra dma/100 hard drive at Fry's for
>> $375...  "home of fast, friendly courteous service! (R)"
U> less than two years later, we have 320 GB for the same price:
So then why does my webhost _still_ only give me 200MB?
--
Gary Lawrence Murphy <garym@teledyn.com> TeleDynamics Communications Inc
Business Advantage through Community Software : http://www.teledyn.com
"Computers are useless.  They can only give you answers."(Pablo Picasso)

from localhost (jalapeno [127.0.0.1])
	by jmason.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D32BA16F16
	for <jm@localhost>; Tue,  1 Oct 2002 15:30:00 +0100 (IST)
from jalapeno [127.0.0.1]
	by localhost with IMAP (fetchmail-5.9.0)
	for jm@localhost (single-drop); Tue, 01 Oct 2002 15:30:00 +0100 (IST)
from xent.com ([64.161.22.236]) by dogma.slashnull.org
    (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g91EIEK28680 for <jm@jmason.org>;
    Tue, 1 Oct 2002 15:18:15 +0100
from lair.xent.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by xent.com (Postfix)
    with ESMTP id 56C262940CB; Tue,  1 Oct 2002 07:18:02 -0700 (PDT)
from mta6.snfc21.pbi.net (mta6.snfc21.pbi.net [206.13.28.240])
    by xent.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BEDF429409E for <fork@xent.com>;
    Tue,  1 Oct 2002 07:17:05 -0700 (PDT)
from endeavors.com ([66.126.120.174]) by mta6.snfc21.pbi.net
    (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.1 (built May  7 2001)) with ESMTP id
    <0H3B001XU3OMRY@mta6.snfc21.pbi.net> for fork@xent.com; Tue,
    01 Oct 2002 07:17:10 -0700 (PDT)

Russell Turpin wrote:
>
> Gregory Alan Bolcer:
> >I'm not sure since I haven't attended civics class
> >in quite some time, but the First Amendment doesn't cover protected speech,
> >hate speech, or actions. ..
>
> The first two are wrong. The first amendment DOES
> protect speech the Supreme Court decides it protects
> (duh!), and that happens to include most of what
> people consider hate speech. Unlike many other
> nations, the US has no laws against hate speech, per
> se. And the first amendment is the reason for that.
>
This was poking fun of the practice of making
up differnt types of speech with different
types of protected status.  I think the
laws specialing out hate and protected speech
are ridiculous.  The point I keep trying to make
is that there's only two types, speech and action.
I agree, they are all speech and should be
covered by the First Amendment, but
If hate speech is so protected, why are certain
states trying to prosecute people for it?  There's
only two answers and one of them is wrong.
1) Because hate speech is different and needs to
have a different level of protection dictated
by whoever's offended at the time.
2) It's because it's not just speech, but action.
A action who's consequences are foreseeable by
any reasonable person.
Hate speech is mislabeled.  It's really "threat".  I think
they let the mislabeling perpetuate as there's advantage
in being able to counter-threat with loss of liberty and
money through civil and criminal lawsuits for people THEY
don't like.
Greg
> _________________________________________________________________
> Join the world?s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail.
> http://www.hotmail.com