Links
Archives
- 01/01/2004 - 02/01/2004
- 11/01/2004 - 12/01/2004
- 12/01/2004 - 01/01/2005
- 01/01/2005 - 02/01/2005
- 02/01/2005 - 03/01/2005
- 03/01/2005 - 04/01/2005
- 04/01/2005 - 05/01/2005
- 05/01/2005 - 06/01/2005
- 06/01/2005 - 07/01/2005
- 07/01/2005 - 08/01/2005
- 08/01/2005 - 09/01/2005
- 09/01/2005 - 10/01/2005
- 10/01/2005 - 11/01/2005
- 11/01/2005 - 12/01/2005
- 12/01/2005 - 01/01/2006
- 01/01/2006 - 02/01/2006
- 02/01/2006 - 03/01/2006
- 03/01/2006 - 04/01/2006
- 04/01/2006 - 05/01/2006
- 05/01/2006 - 06/01/2006
- 06/01/2006 - 07/01/2006
- 07/01/2006 - 08/01/2006
- 08/01/2006 - 09/01/2006
- 09/01/2006 - 10/01/2006
- 10/01/2006 - 11/01/2006
- 11/01/2006 - 12/01/2006
- 12/01/2006 - 01/01/2007
- 01/01/2007 - 02/01/2007
- 02/01/2007 - 03/01/2007
- 03/01/2007 - 04/01/2007
- 04/01/2007 - 05/01/2007
- 07/01/2007 - 08/01/2007
- 08/01/2007 - 09/01/2007
- 09/01/2007 - 10/01/2007
- 10/01/2007 - 11/01/2007
- 07/01/2008 - 08/01/2008
A tribute to Condoleeza Rice and George W. Bush who, despite voluminious evidence to the contrary, said, "I don't think anybody could have predicted that these people would take an airplane and slam it into the World Trade Center, take another one and slam it into the Pentagon, that they would try to use an airplane as a missile," adding that "even in retrospect" there was "nothing" to suggest that" and "I don't think anyone anticipated the breach of the levees," respectively.
Friday, March 04, 2005
LIMITING FREE SPEECH
Free speech actually is not free. The price for you to have free speech; you have to allow those with conflicting viewpoints the opportunity to express them.
The Supreme Court has ruled several times on government restrictions on free speech. There are time, place and manner restrictions. There's a prohibition against inciting immediate violent conduct. The case law is quite extensive and generally carries safeguards to prevent government overreaching. However, one important restriction the court has failed to address is often overlooked.
I am not one who usually advocates further restrictions on free speech. However, I think that when a safety issue exists, speech should in fact be limited. Therefore, I am proposing a federal law that would prohibit making disparaging remarks about beef in a crowded theater. It should be no trouble to get the Texans on board for this proposal although the liberal elite "coasters" may be difficult to persuade. Hopefully, my grassroots effort will be embraced by the public with the added benefit of helping me out financially.
|
The Supreme Court has ruled several times on government restrictions on free speech. There are time, place and manner restrictions. There's a prohibition against inciting immediate violent conduct. The case law is quite extensive and generally carries safeguards to prevent government overreaching. However, one important restriction the court has failed to address is often overlooked.
I am not one who usually advocates further restrictions on free speech. However, I think that when a safety issue exists, speech should in fact be limited. Therefore, I am proposing a federal law that would prohibit making disparaging remarks about beef in a crowded theater. It should be no trouble to get the Texans on board for this proposal although the liberal elite "coasters" may be difficult to persuade. Hopefully, my grassroots effort will be embraced by the public with the added benefit of helping me out financially.
