hello bill monday september NUMBER NUMBER NUMBER NUMBER NUMBER pm you wrote mf i don t think free speech is a license to speak directly at and be in the mf physical presence of any particular individual of your choosing especially mf when that individual is busy doing something else and isn t interested bs yep i agree NUMBER sure and that goes back to my second argument cohen they can walk away nobody compells them to stand there i ll agree fully but we still have a constitutional right to speak out against policies actions and grievances again if you want it another way lets change the constitution bs huh are you saying that whoever has the loudest voice gets to be heard bs shouting down a public speaker could be considered a form of censorship if bs shouting down public speakers is protected it is only a matter of time bs before the people doing the shouting have their tactic used against bs them every single time they open their mouth the tactic is stupid and bs non productive and if generally used will only result in chaos the tactic bs is just stupid ego bation at best unless the goal is to generate chaos bs and humans whose goals and actions in life are to create chaos in society bs should be locked up provided you can accurately identify them which is not bs really possible anyway but hey this is my rant imho bs bill no offense or anything but there s a difference between holding a sign that doesn t agree with bush and screaming at him my sole point as far as the NUMBERst amendment goes is that there is more to this game than just being an angry liberal youth which is the gross culmination of everyone s argument sofar the screaming isn t the most effective method around i don t believe i argued that it was but screaming is happening because the means to communicate to the representatives involved are diminishing at least as far as the people doing the screaming are concerned for the record i don t support the screamers in organized conferences such as the colin powell shout down that was mentioned earlier i don t think that this is what the NUMBERst amendment was implying these folks do have a right to be heard and i think they have a right to be heard by the folks they elected in the first place my point my only point was really more concerned with the cases such as mr nell he wasn t engaged at least from the limited facts we have in a shoutout but rather in a difference of opinion he has a right to possess this opinion and make it known to the representatives that are elected a sign is not a shout out i think i may have missed or not accurately addressed the original thread switch that took this example and mixed in the screaming dissenters to the mix i was mostly responding with my miffedness in having broad brush strokes applied to a group without examining the policy reasons that might have contributed to it in this case the screaming parties are fed up with getting corralled miles away from the folks they need to speak with they re resorting to creative offensive and constitutionally challengable means but its not simply due to the fact that they re NUMBER and have lost all decorum the my generation never did this is all bs there s more to this story we just dont know it all i hope this clarifies my position for the quick rehash screaming free speech on all cases dissent free speech provided you follow what has been laid down by the supremes k best regards bitbitch mailto bitbitch URL 