Thereafter, he started getting on my case about free speech. This guy has obviously never read the constitution, much less tried to understand it and it's role in the law. I'm just going to post the rest of what was said here.
Ron said:
> >> Yep. As I said in my post, and was ignored because it made too much
> >> sense (?), if you can't support the expression of speech you don't
> >> like, you're not supporting free speech.
Wolfger said:
> >You're (again) confusing the issue. Nobody here has made any attacks on
> >your freedom of expression. But by the same token, we have the freedom
> >to not listen. And to express our desire for you to be quiet.
Ron replied:
>I'm afraid we'll just have to agree to disagree. When a person
>attempts to quell political speech they find ugly they are
>demonstrating their lack of support for free speech. By definition,
>as far as I can see. After all, the whole idea of freedom of speech
>is that we all have the right to say what ever we like.
I interjected:
The whole idea of freedom of speech is that the government will not stop you from saying or writing something. This is very important, but it does not mean that any moron can say anything he wants to whoever he wants at any time he wants, and that's a federally protected right. For instance, if you go into a biker bar and tell the biggest, meanest looking guy there he's a little pussy and better move his hunk of tin out of your parking spot, and you get the ass beating you deserve for doing something that stupid, said biker may get assault charges, but would be in the slightest bit of legal trouble for infringing on your right to free speech.
I don't think you understand free speech. I have explained this a couple other times, with much better examples. I will say this one more time- FREE SPEECH DOES NOT MEAN YOU ARE GUARANTEED TO BE ABLE TO SAY WHATEVER YOU WANT WHENEVER YOU WANT. IT MEANS THE GOVERNMENT WILL NOT STOP YOU. IT IS THE INDIVIDUAL CITIZENS RIGHT AND RESPONSIBILITY TO CENSOR WHAT THEY DO AND DO NOT WANT TO HEAR, BECAUSE THE GOVERNMENT ISN'T GOING TO DO IT FOR YOU. General rule of thumb, the FCC fucks that up a bit. I am, by the way, actively trying to get the FCC to drop its censors. Not much luck so far.
Ron continued:
>Note that includes telling someone to shut up, something Bippy told
>me to do because she found my ideas bothersome.
I didn't find your ideas bothersome. I had heard them all before, many many times. Trust me. Anyone who has a significant other in the military has heard, from many different people, why the military is awful and horrible, and why you should hate it, blah, blah fucking blah. I thought you were spouting left-wing rhetoric that I was tired of, and I thought you were an asshole. I was hardly disturbed by your ideas.
In case you were wondering what it was I actually thought. It's not a good idea to tell me what I find in your ideas. I have a nasty habit of drawing my own conclusions.
And now, to end this bullshit about free speech once and for all, I will post the first amendment and explain it to you.
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Okay. So Congress cannot PASS A LAW that says what religion you can or cannot follow, which is a good thing. Congress cannot PASS A LAW that would halt the publication of books or newspapers- which is why www.Loompanics.com is still around, and you can get books about how to make meth and bombs. Hell, you can get said books at the library. Congress will also not PASS A LAW that would curb your right to speak, especially at a public assembly, such as an anti-war demonstration or a Pampered Chief party.
I am not a congress person. I am not a government agency. I do not run the world, and I am unlikely to. If the government tried to stop you from spouting stupid bullshit about how we should handicap our troops and get more of them killed by evening out the playing ground, misquoting the Geneva convention, and generally not understanding what's going on in the world, I would fight for your right to print such a book. That would be an infringement on your right to free speech. I, personally, am saying that you're an ass and should shut up. As I am not a representative of the United States Congress I am not capable of curbing your right to fee speech, as guaranteed in the United States Constitution. Even if I really wanted to, I couldn't do it.
Doesn't that make you feel better?