Re: Attention, parents of CMU students!

"Markasurus Probertasaurus" <markprobert17@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in
message news:<Q5gkb.62219$%B2.16353717@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>...
> "Barbara Schwarz" <BarbaralovesMarty@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
> news:4c418fa.0310180914.3d5204a7@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > "Markasurus Probertasaurus" <markprobert17@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in
>  message news:<fiVjb.29217$%B2.8752751@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>...
> > > "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?
> 
> Hey, babs, I asked you a question. You failed to answer it. So, you are
> blowing hot flatulence?

Sorry, can't find that question. What should I proof? That it is not
okay to blow others up? You can try that out youself. Stick your
finger between door and frame and slam the door. Then tell me how it
felt, and that nobody should to that and a lot worse to somebody elses
body.
 
> 
> > > 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.
> >
> >
> >
> > You should defend the right of people that might fall to violence by
> > bomb promotors, terrorists, other criminals, the KKK, the neo-Nazis
> > and religious persecutors.
> 
> Babsy, I even defend the right of the Kriminal Kult of $cientology to
utter
> their hogwash. I do NOT defend their actions, nor do I defend the
actions of
> the terrorists, criminals, the KKK, neo-Nazis, or religious persecutors.

I don't defend anybody dangerous free speech, because they abuse the
free speech to cause violence.

> 
> *Note*: I exclude anyone who is attempting to stifle the racketeering
> influence corrupt organization known as the Kriminal Kult of
$cientology, as
> that is not a religion in any sense of the word.

What is that with your pesecution mania and SCN anyway?

> 
> > Those that you just mentioned threw the first stone, the others are
> > the innocent people.
> 
> That is the price of freedom. Live with it, just like everyone else.

It exactly not the price of freedom. Spreading hate and teaching
others how to violate and kill others is not freedom for those that
have to suffer the consequenses. Is this so hard to understand or
what?

Barbara Schwarz