from localhost (jalapeno [127.0.0.1])
	by jmason.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5BD1516F1F
	for <jm@localhost>; Mon, 30 Sep 2002 17:54:01 +0100 (IST)
from jalapeno [127.0.0.1]
	by localhost with IMAP (fetchmail-5.9.0)
	for jm@localhost (single-drop); Mon, 30 Sep 2002 17:54:01 +0100 (IST)
from xent.com ([64.161.22.236]) by dogma.slashnull.org
    (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g8UErJK03292 for <jm@jmason.org>;
    Mon, 30 Sep 2002 15:53:20 +0100
from lair.xent.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by xent.com (Postfix)
    with ESMTP id 6CDF32940C8; Mon, 30 Sep 2002 07:53:09 -0700 (PDT)
from mta7.pltn13.pbi.net (mta7.pltn13.pbi.net [64.164.98.8]) by
    xent.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 73C6529409E for <Fork@xent.com>;
    Mon, 30 Sep 2002 07:52:30 -0700 (PDT)
from endeavors.com ([66.126.120.174]) by mta7.pltn13.pbi.net
    (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.1 (built May  7 2001)) with ESMTP id
    <0H3900BC9ANJDV@mta7.pltn13.pbi.net> for Fork@xent.com; Mon,
    30 Sep 2002 07:52:31 -0700 (PDT)
Re: A moment of silence for the First Amendment (fwd)
From fork-admin@xent.com  Mon Sep 30 17:56:33 2002

Owen Byrne wrote:
> What a load of crap. Politics are somehow more muddy now?  I'd say that
> its considerably
> clearer - the vast majority of people feel disenfranchised, and the
> common practice of
> putting protestors in boxes is done usually to hide them from TV
> cameras, visiting dignitaries,
> etc, further exacerbating those feelings.
> "Unpeaceably disrupting political rallies" is now usually done by police
> with riot gear and pepper spray.
>
> We had a good one here a month or so ago - a few people peaceably
> strayed from the permit area,
> which was nearly a mile from the site of the meeting of finance
> ministers held here (the motorcade drove
> by it for about 10 seconds), and were immediately gassed,  beaten and
> arrested. Not very muddied at all.
What does that exactly have to do with the statement that
distruption of peacable political assembly has become
a common practice disruption tool?  It's an observation
not a judgement, comment, approval.  You've focused on the
word "muddy" to use it in a different context than the one
I posted.
Maybe the distinction I was trying to make was too subtle and
I was trying to be too clever with my writing this morning.
Let me summarize the important parts of my post for you: I
have a premise that there is a difference between free and protected
speech and action.  I think O'Neill on his soapbox doesn't
understand the distinction.
All better?
Greg