Re: Attention, parents of CMU students!

"Barbara Schwarz" <BarbaralovesMarty@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:4c418fa.0310170853.72c5faca@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> "Magi D. Shepley" <magid@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote
in
message news:<3F8F5180.7030701@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>...
> > 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 censor****p? 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 fa****on.
> > 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.