Hello Bill,
Monday, September 30, 2002, 5:46:11 PM, you wrote:
>> MF> I don't think free speech is a license to speak directly at
>> and be in the
>> MF> physical presence of any particular individual of your
>> choosing - especially
>> MF> when that individual is busy doing something else and isn't
>> interested.
BS> Yep. I agree 100%
>>
>> Sure.  And that goes back to my second argument -- Cohen.   THey can
>> walk away.   NObody compells them to stand there, I'll agree fully.
>> But we still have a Constitutional right to speak out against
>> policies, actions and grievances.
>>
>> Again.  If you want it another way, lets change the Constitution.
BS> Huh?  Are you saying that whoever has the loudest voice gets to be heard?
BS> Shouting down a public speaker could be considered a form of censorship. If
BS> shouting down public speakers is 'protected' it is only a matter of time
BS> before the people doing the shouting have their tactic used against
BS> them -every single time they open their mouth-. The tactic is stupid and
BS> non-productive and if generally used, will only result in chaos.  The tactic
BS> is just stupid ego-bation at best, unless the goal is to generate chaos.
BS> And humans whose goals and actions in life are to create chaos in society
BS> should be locked up (provided you can accurately identify them, which is not
BS> really possible anyway, but hey, this is my rant :-). IMHO.
BS> Bill
No offense or anything, but there's a difference between holding a
sign that doesn't agree with Bush and screaming at him.
My sole point, as far as the 1st Amendment goes is that there is more
to this game than just being an angry, liberal youth.  (Which is the
gross culmination of everyone's argument sofar)  The screaming isn't
the most effective method around.  I don't believe I argued that it
was.  But screaming is happening because the means to communicate to
the representatives involved are diminishing, at least as far as the
people doing the screaming are concerned.   For the record, I don't
support the screamers in organized conferences (Such as the Colin
Powell shout-down that was mentioned earlier).  I don't think that
this is what the 1st Amendment was implying.  These folks -do- have a
right to be heard, and I think they have a right to be heard by the
folks they elected in the first place.
My point, (my only point) was really more concerned with the cases
such as Mr. Nell.   He wasn't engaged (at least from the limited facts
we have) in a shoutout, but rather in a difference of opinion.   He
has a right to possess this opinion and make it known  to the
representatives that are elected.   A sign is not a shout-out.
I think I may have missed (or not accurately addressed) the original
thread switch that took this example and mixed in the screaming
dissenters to the mix.  I was mostly responding with my miffedness in
having broad-brush strokes applied to a group without examining the
policy reasons that might have contributed to it.   IN this case, the
screaming parties are fed up with getting corralled miles away from
the folks they need to speak with.   They're resorting to creative,
offensive and constitutionally challengable means, but its not simply
due to the fact that they're 20 and have lost all decorum.   The 'My
generation never did this ' is all BS.   THere's more to this story,
we just dont' know it all.
I hope this clarifies my position.   For the quick rehash:
Screaming != Free speech on all cases.
Dissent = Free speech, provided you follow what has been laid down by
the Supremes.
K?
--
Best regards,
bitbitch                            mailto:bitbitch@magnesium.net