From: exuptr@exu.ericsson.se (Patrick Taylor)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Liberals DO oppose First Amendment rights
Date: 21 Nov 92 00:10:23 GMT
Organization: Ericsson Network Systems, Inc.
X-Disclaimer: This article was posted by a user at Ericsson.
              Any opinions expressed are strictly those of the
              user and not necessarily those of Ericsson.

In article <1e687cINNfqt@spool.mu.edu> marcr@studsys.mscs.mu.edu (Marc Rassbach) writes:
>In article <BxoBI8.39r@news.iastate.edu> barrett@iastate.edu (Marc N. 

>Ok.  We have posters advertising for the amendment.  And the gonverment
>didn't take them down.  Free speech is protected.

>>   I eventually decided to put up some signs of my own.  I had received
>>an 11"x17" flyer in the mail from a group opposing the Iowa ERA.  I
>>had the flyer reduced to 8.5"x14", and started posting copies around the
>>campus.  It did not take long for me to notice that my signs would 
>>disappear not longer after I'd post them.  Neither I nor anybody else
>>touched any of the signs posted by the feminists, but my signs were
>>very rapidly torn down.

>Ok.  You have signs against the amendment.  And the GOVERNMENT has not
>been accused of taking them down.  Free speech is still protected.

Not necessarily.  If a third party has taken the signs down (i.e., not the 
school and not the posters), then free speech has been violated.  Not to 
mention other things.

>Now, a KEY question:
>Was YOUR sign(s) 'approved' by the campus group that approves posters?
>(every campus I've been on requires this.  Anything not approved is
>subject to being torn down.)              

By the school only.  No one else has the right or the information to make 
this move.  IMHO, this is a copout, since you don't have any reason at all 
to believe they were not approved.  

Let me ask you, do you think they SHOULD HAVE been approved?

>>   My experiences with my anti-ERA signs were by no means 
unique.  I>>was told by a friend who is involved with the local Campus 
Crusade>>for Christ that they have a terrible time keeping signs up.  The 
signs>>
>>   All of this leads me to the solid conclusion that conservatives

>Funny, I'm lead to the conclusion you have signs that are not approved
>are being posted.  And un-approved posters get ripped down.

That's an awfully convenient conclusion, with no basis.

>>**IS** fully protected by the First Amendment, but liberals refuse to
>>accept this.  Conservatives, however, always respect the First Amendment
>>rights of everybody, regardless of opposing viewpoints.

>Ahhhh.  The constitution limits the power of the government wrt speech.
>How do your examples show Liberals getting the government to violate
>your free speech rights?

The Government should not only not interfere, but ENFORCE his free speech 
rights.  Assuming the signs were correctly placed in the first place, any 
private individual removing the sign of his/her own accord is committing 
vandalism and needs to be arrested.  That sign BELONGS to someone and has 
been STOLEN, among other things.

>In the case of the posters being ripped down, I bet if posters 
>mentioning AD&D gaming or remiding everyone to celebrate the 
>Solstice with a circle ceremony they'd be ripped down.  Perhaps
>by your friend, if not by others in the CCforC.

>-- 
>Marc Rassbach    marcr@studsys.mscs.mu.edu    If you take my advice, that
>MS-DOS - it's not   marc@milestn.mil.wi.us    is your problem, not mine!
>my problem!     If it was said on UseNet, it must be true.
>   Unix - It's a nice place to live, but you don't want to visit there.
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 PEROT IN '96!

  - Patrick Taylor, Ericsson Network Systems
    exuptr@exu.ericsson.se                    "Don't let the .se fool you"
    exuptr@ZGNews.Lonestar.Org  <SLOW!>
Xref: sparky alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:9019 alt.rush-limbaugh:10245