[Old Mountain man]

I don’t know what the heck you are talking about. I was not following George W. Bush in 1999 before he was president.

There should not be limits on freedom of speech where the only real consequence is minor irritation on the part of the speakee. Or even major irritation.

[Ol' Dan Tucker]

I don’t know what the heck you are talking about. I was not following George W. Bush in 1999 before he was president.

Then you must not have been paying attention to the news in 1999, either. This story was widely reported at the time, mainly because of the implications of how it would affect the internet and sites like this one.

Out of curiosity, did you vote for Bush in 2000?

For more details, see my post #151

There should not be limits on freedom of speech where the only real consequence is minor irritation on the part of the speakee. Or even major irritation.

Well, then. It appears Bush disagrees with you because that's exactly what he tried to do --limit another's free speech. When his campaign's cease-and-desist letters failed, his campaign (read: Karen Hughes) tried lying to the press. That failed, too. He then tried to get the FEC to do his dirty work. That failed, too.

[metmom]

There should not be limits on freedom of speech where the only real consequence is minor irritation on the part of the speakee. Or even major irritation.

Too bad that isn't applied more often. That would curb the abuse button mashing if more people took it to heart.

[Elsie]

There should not be limits on freedom of speech where the only real consequence is minor irritation on the part of the speakee. Or even major irritation.

A classic!

[Graybeard58]

There should not be limits on freedom of speech where the only real consequence is minor irritation on the part of the speakee. Or even major irritation.

How about when people "annoy" you?