XPost: misc.education, soc.bi, misc.kids.health   
   XPost: soc.rights.human   
   From: markprobert17@lumbercartel.com   
      
   "Barbara Schwarz"  wrote in message   
   news:4c418fa.0310170853.72c5faca@posting.google.com...   
   > "Magi D. Shepley"  wrote in   
   message news:<3F8F5180.7030701@catsincyberspace.concentriccircles.net>...   
   > > Nick,   
   > > The public library is open and available to all people.  You don't need   
   > > any money, there is no age limit (beyond the 5 years or having the   
   > > ability to write your name that most libraries impose prior to checking   
   > > out books).  I guarentee that I can go to the library that is 2 blocks   
   > > from my apartment and find things promoting criminal behavior in the   
   > > children's section and the young adult's section.   
   >   
   > Which means that your librarians should be investigated, Magi, because   
   > such books should not be in the children's section.   
      
   Don'tcha just love censorship? Until it applies to you.   
      
   Children should   
   > read books to build character not to become terrorists and criminals.   
      
   Some would call it self defense.   
      
   > > I can *probably* even find the instructions on how to make a bomb in the   
   > > children's non-fiction section...  I won't guarantee that, however,   
   > > because it may not be labeled in that fashion.   
   > > Freedom of Speech means that I have the right to disagree with you, and   
   > > I can fight to have your speech stopped: but I have no right to actually   
   > > STOP it.   
   > >   
   > > Magi   
   >   
   > Freedom of Speech has it's limitations, Magi.   
      
   *Prior restraint* is very seldom allowed by SCOTUS.   
      
   Check your law library   
   > hereto. Teaching others on to blow people up is such a limitation.   
      
   Oh? Care to cite proof of that assertion? Or, are you just wishfully   
   thinking?   
      
   I   
   > hope you are no fan of Pat Robertson, the Christian Coalition founder.   
   > This alleged religious man said a few days ago, during a recent Club   
   > 700 episode, that it would not be a bad idea to plant a nuclear device   
   > underneath the U.S. State Department.   
      
   That is his right to say. Just like it is my right to say that he, again,   
   proves he is a loon. The appropriate response to unaccepatable speech is not   
   stifily it, but uttering more speech.   
      
   > That man is crazy, he is openly   
   > advocating terrorism, and he is abusing the First Amendment, free   
   > speech for his evil intentions and hatred.   
      
   He is exercising his right of free speech, and, when he did it, he enhanced   
   your right of free speech. IOW, you benefited from what he said.   
      
   If he has problems with the   
   > State Department, why is he not filing a penal complaint against them   
   > or why is he not suing them?   
      
   Because he chose his manner of expressing his complaint. One of the elements   
   of free speech is that the person uttering the unacceptable speech has the   
   right to choose the manner.   
      
   BTW, I also defend the right of the KKK, neo-Nazis, and other such people to   
   peaceably assemble, and say what they wish.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)