Given the masthead quote on Free Republic's home page, it's disappointing to see the absence of commentary on this case. Hannity-Colmes danced around the topic from a calculated distance Friday evening without ever once mentioning "political corectness." Much was said about the attitudes of Rae, a person clearly not of the chattering class and unflanked on Hannity-Colmes by legal counsel. Nothing was said of the consequences to the First Amendment from criminalizing thought and speech.
A function of speech can be to challenge, provoke, and even invite dispute. Sadly, a generation of academics and their student minions seem to have grown up with no exposure to the words of Oliver Wendell Holmes: "If there is any principle of the Constitution that morer imperatively calls for attachment than any other, it is the principle of free thought--not free thought for those who agree with us but freedom for the thought we hate."
This spirit certainly was not evident this past week at Berkeley where storm troopers of the left were up to their old tricks, this time stealing a full press run of the conservative magazine, the Patriot. It's not all that surprising that Berkeley's "marketplace of ideas" doesn't include conservative viewpoints. But the absence of any Free Republic response, once again, is surprising. Or are these matters left to David Horowitz?
1 posted on
03/03/2002 2:56:38 PM PST by
gabby hayes
(nagbacal@mindspring.com)
To: gabby hayes
You Crackers and Honkies need to quit your whining.
You should know how PC works by now...
2 posted on
03/03/2002 3:00:37 PM PST by
pocat
To: gabby hayes
Berkeley isn't really worth a FreeRepublic response. The guy who defecates in a tin can on stage in front of an audience is really more worthy.
3 posted on
03/03/2002 3:02:15 PM PST by
muawiyah
To: gabby hayes
This story and the ensuing trial is a travesty. Where's the ACLU, oh yeah, they're out trying to erase "In God We Trust" off of the coinage.
4 posted on
03/03/2002 3:04:00 PM PST by
Pietro
To: gabby hayes
He would have been better off if he had shot the man dead who accosted his wife. That way there only his side of the story to tell.
To: gabby hayes
Earlier this month, a jury acquited Lonny Rae of felony "hate crime" but found him liable of assault for having hurled the epithet.
This can't be constitutional.. There's just no way.
How can you turn a racial insult into a Felony Assault?
7 posted on
03/03/2002 3:09:18 PM PST by
Jhoffa_
To: gabby hayes
Nothing was said of the consequences to the First Amendment from criminalizing thought and speech. Borrowing from an old Virginia Slims commercial: "You've come a long way, baby!"
To: gabby hayes
"NOT OVER MY DEAD BODY WILL THEY CURTAIL YOUR FREE SPEECH"Jim's comment on what the president should say when the time comes is priceless -- *right out there on the freepin masthead*.
To: gabby hayes
Would everyone on this thread please go
Here to make reperations.
Thankyou.
< /sarcasm >
To: gabby hayes
To find all articles tagged or indexed using Straight Americans Speaking up (SASU), click below: |
|
click here >>> |
SASU |
<<< click here |
|
Master Bump List (To view all FR Bump Lists, click here) |
Freedom of speech is our only true weapon against tyranny.
12 posted on
03/03/2002 3:16:20 PM PST by
Khepera
To: gabby hayes
FYI, this case has been discussed on FR when it first occured.
If this is of such concern to you, why did you not post the actual article? I clicked on your link and your link does not take me to the author's article; rather just to WND.
If you want to get imput from Freeperdom, post the article in its entirety. That is much better than a link to nowhere. :)
To: gabby hayes; all
Attention FReepers: We interrupt this thread for a brief announcement regarding our sponsor:
It's FReepathon Time!
A FReepathon Cheer
Click, click, click this thread!
Give, give, give some bread!
Click this thread
Give some bread
Let's FReep till we're dead!
Thank you. We now return you to your regular postings.
23 posted on
03/03/2002 3:53:07 PM PST by
Jen
To: gabby hayes
I guess I would like to hear how the judge and prosecutor who ordered the sentence explain themselves. Any lawyer knows you can't put someone in jail for mouthing off. Maybe charge them with false imprisonment?
To: gabby hayes
I guess I would like to hear how the judge and prosecutor who ordered the sentence explain themselves. Any lawyer knows you can't put someone in jail for mouthing off. Maybe charge them with false imprisonment?
To: gabby hayes
Please, someone out there, give us a break. These people are moronic.
To: gabby hayes
"NOT OVER MY DEAD BODY WILL THEY CURTAIL YOUR FREE SPEECH"
Mr. President,
We do not care for name calling either but my husband said that if I were attacked he promises not to call my attacker any names, he will just shoot him in my defence, it would be better than the humiliation of jail time for name calling. The attacker walked free, explain that will you please?
Very Sincerely yours,
Mrs. John Q. Public __________________________________________________________
Freepers: You may have a better choice of words than myself but whip up a letter simular to the above and tell President Bush how you feel about this and while you are at it, ask Sean Hannity how rational would he have reacted if his wife had been the one being attack and how would he have handled it, Sean made me ill with his indefference towards this mans wife.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson