Posted on 11/21/2008 9:55:58 AM PST by WellyP
Here's the next Attorney General talking about curbing free speech on the internet:
Hopefully FR is prepared by having a foreign mirror.
Bookmark
Bookmark
But he’s still supporting easy availability of pornography, of course.
--same wording as the left uses for firearms ownership---
Koresh would have walked out of that compound in the company of the county sheriff. ATF and later the FBI wanted some medals of valor for career improvement Reno, Holder and Clinton saw a chance to appear as tough Dems right at the start of their tenure, especially after WTC ONE. Think about how that history might repeat itself sometime in March or April. Can you see the feds busting into Jim Robinson’s pad?
Limiting our right to speak freely, particularly about political matters, is expected from an Øbama administration — the facts and the truth may, if allowed to aggregate over several years, be too much for a majority of the hypnotized to continue to ignore.
THE WEB HAS NO BOARDERS ... THEY WILL LOOK LIKE COMMIE-CHINKS IF THEY RESTRICT US ...
Who knew?
Yes. Unlimited freedom for pornography, but strict limitations on political speech.
Somehow, I don’t think this was what the Founders intended.
I wouldn’t have any great objections if pornography was outlawed again. Never happen, of course. The pornographers are major contributors to the DNC, too many people are hooked on it, and besides, these leftists just can’t do without their pornography and abortion.
I used to think differently. I remember I bought a bootleg copy of “Lady Chatterley’s Lover” when I visited Europe as a teenager, because I resented the ban on it. Freedom of the press and all that. Then I read it and realized that, unlike Sons and Lovers, it was just a stupid piece of garbage. Silly and laughable, in fact.
So now we have pornography that makes Lady Chatterley look quaint, but we have strict limits on political speech, with more to come. Worst of both worlds.
I live overseas and can help set up a foreign site for anyone who wants one.
sorry, don’t buy it. i watched the clip (from 1999) and don’t get the connection between what he said an how people are reacting here.
conservatives have been trying to get pornography access restricted on the internet (what he was referencing) for a decade and courts have consistently shot it down.
now, i’m not saying i agree with him or that he won’t make a stab at restricting speech — but from this clip i don’t see the connection to the “hysteria” here.
they will look like what they are, you mean.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.