[continued from previous message]   
      
   >> claims, the remedy is not to suppress speech.   
   >> The remedy is even more speech to counter what they say.   
   >   
   > This was common back in the day of two newspapers, three TV channels   
   > and half a dozen radio stations.   
   >   
   Non sequitur.  That is still the remedy.   
      
   > The Internet allows users to *select* what they want to hear based on their   
   own biases.   
   >   
   Under the U.S. Constitution, people are and have always been free to   
   be selective in what they want to hear, based on any criteria they want.   
   Don't want to hear something that offends you?  The answer is turn your   
   head to it not to shut down the speaker.   
      
   > I expect the reason you're so worried about losing the ability to lie in   
   public   
    >   
   There you go, spreading a lie about me. See how that works?   
   Do you want government to shut you up because you just lied   
   about me?  No, I thought not.   
      
   > is because you want to be able to lie anytime you want.   
   >   
   What I want is the protection of free speech for all, even speech   
   that might offend people like you.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)