[First Amendment]

I honestly wonder if you can't see that you are arguing for a "right" that doesn't exist in the private sector. The government was not involved in ANY of the issues you bring up.

I believe she isn't arguing the point that Savage or anyone has the constitutional right to free speech on someone else's dime. The larger point is that the Gaystapo and thought police are gaining in power, and that shunning, social pressure, academic pressure, and so on are gaining momentum.

Just yesterday on FR there was an article about a Cal Poly student who was stopped from putting up a poster about a legitimate college-sponsored speech because the black activists didn't like it. The student was threatened with possible expulsion. He is fighting it, but this is the kind of shut-down of free speech which is happening more and more.

Did you know that in England not too long ago it became illegal to publicly use the word "homosexual"? It's too negative, the word "gay" has to be used. And now with the Supreme Court Justice saying that precedent or laws from other countries have to be taken into consideration when "interpreting" the Constitution, that type of speech restriction may be seen in a theatre near you soon.

People may say, "Oh, that can't happen here!" But would you have imagined ten or twenty years ago what is happening NOW?

[justshe]

If groups you don't approve of have the government sanctioned right to speak out, then so do you.

What I see occuring, often, is the battle-cry for 'free speech' for ONLY those issues one approves of. It doesn't work that way. You may not like the message, but you should be defending the RIGHT to 'speak' that message. If the message you don't like is silenced....then YOUR message can be silenced too.

(And imo, Breyer's comments have been blown entirely out of proportion. I saw the interview. But that is NOT the topic of this thread.)

[weegee]

And now with the Supreme Court Justice saying that precedent or laws from other countries have to be taken into consideration when "interpreting" the Constitution, that type of speech restriction may be seen in a theatre near you soon.

Michael Savage referenced this Justice tonight. Not in reference to people going after him, just think of our Constitution having to conform to other nations.

You can forget about that second ammendment right now. That first ammendment doesn't mean much in other countries either.

[Sir_Ed]

" Did you know that in England not too long ago it became illegal to publicly use the word "homosexual"? It's too negative, the word "gay" has to be used."

Where did you hear this? I'd like to read about it.

Ed

[Sir_Ed]

" Did you know that in England not too long ago it became illegal to publicly use the word "homosexual"? It's too negative, the word "gay" has to be used."

Where did you hear this? I'd like to read about it.

Ed