Subject:
|
Re: Free Speech, again
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 23 Apr 2003 20:30:52 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
338 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
>
> > > > > http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/04/23/scotus.free.speech.ap/index.html
> > >
> > > > > I am as big a proponent of free speech as anyone I know,
> > >
> > > > Well, maybe not.
> > >
> > > ??
>
> > You know me, right? Therefore I am in the set of "anyone I know". And (the
> > rest of) my post showed that I'm a bigger proponent of free speech than you are.
>
> I don't buy your application of free speech in that post, though. You
> might as well have said "I advocate a second helping of pudding for
> everyone, therefore I'm a greater advocate of free speech."
>
> Dave!
If I get pudding out of the deal, I'm with Larry.
Canada has no 1st ammendment clause, iirc, but somehow my freedom of speech
doesn't seem to be limited. Do we actually need a specific clause outlining
the necessity of freedom of speech, or can we chalk free speech to a natural
law/right?
Dave K
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Free Speech, again
|
| (...) I don't buy your application of free speech in that post, though. You might as well have said "I advocate a second helping of pudding for everyone, therefore I'm a greater advocate of free speech." Dave! (21 years ago, 23-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
46 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
