On Fri, 01 Apr 2005 20:08:35 GMT, Strabo 
wrote:

>In Re: There is NO FREEDOM Without Free Speech on Fri, 01 Apr
>2005 14:40:39 GMT, by Morton Davis, we read:
>
>>
>>"Strabo"  wrote in message
>>news:82mp415j01ct7onee7kh762n7kkiaq3h1a{at}4ax.com...
>>> In Re: There is NO FREEDOM Without Free Speech on Wed, 30 Mar
>>> 2005 16:00:37 GMT, by Gunner, we read:
>>>
>>> >On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 20:25:46 -0600, "SaPeIsMa"

>>> >wrote:
>>> >
>>> >>
>>> >>"Johnny Bravo"
 wrote in message
>>> >>news:2r5i419c6p26eijp3av1g8a3i7710iogus{at}4ax.com...
>>> >>> On Sun, 27 Mar 2005 11:47:43 +0200,
"D.E."  wrote:
>>> >>>
>>> >>>>I am not allowed to air my views with a
bullhorn at 3 at night, not
>>> >>>>because I amnot allowed my views but because
people are sleeping.
>>> >>>
>>> >>>  Then that is a restriction on free speech.
>>> >>>
>>> >>
>>> >>Nope.
>>> >>It's a restriction on your right to bother your
neighbors at 3 AM with a
>>> >>bullhorn.
>>> >>That has nothing to do with free speech.
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>> "any restriction of speech is an affront to
human dignity and is
>>> >>> completely incompatible with basic human freedoms"
>>> >>>
>>> >>>  Why are you against basic human freedoms?
>>> >>>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >While a persons right to free speech is unquestioned, one tends to
>>> >forget that ones rights to ignore or not be forced to listen is
>>> >equally valid.
>>> >
>>> >If at 3am, you choose to walk through the neighborhood
with a bullhorn
>>> >and quote verses from Maos Little Red Book, feel free. However, if I
>>> >choose not to listen to it, and your soundwaves enter my property, I
>>> >will indeed take steps to make sure those soundwaves are
not forced on
>>> >me.
>>> >
>>> >Those steps may involve blunt trauma or objects flying at many
>>> >thousands of feet a second.
>>> >
>>> >You forcing me to listen, is a very very strong abrogation of my
>>> >rights and indeed...it will be resisted.
>>> >
>>> >Gunner
>>>
>>> Likewise when the photons from an evil glare, the "dirty
look",
>>> enter your property, your rights are violated?
>>>
>>> There are also those that believe that "verbal abuse" and
>>> certain "thoughts" constitute crimes.
>>>
>>> No Gunner.
>>>
>>> No one forces you to listen or to look. Ordinary sound waves,
>>> photons and mental telepathy don't count. Only a bodily presence,
>>> the potential for physical dislocation, OR a projection
>>> sufficient to cause physical damage to your person, is a
>>> measurable violation. The "reasonable man" judgement holds
>>> here. For example, a microwave or LASAR beam might be considered
>>> a danger.
>>>
>>> You have the right to act but not a right to prevent
>>> another's actions.
>>>
>>>
>>Actually, he has.
>
>Alright. I'll put it another way.
>
>The primary inherent Right of any Individual is the Right to
>defend life, limb and property. The assertion of this Right
>is DOES NOT prevent the Right of another because no one has
>a Right to aggression.
>
>In other words, the aggressor's Right to protection under law
>is negated by his attack on another.
>
>A bullhorn at 3 AM does not cross the self-defense threshhold.
>
>Though a jury might agree with a rock upside the perp's head I
>wouldn't count on it.
>
>
>
>>-*MORT*-
>>
Depends on if they find his body doesnt it?

3-S

Gunner

Rule #35
"That which does not kill you,
 has made a huge tactical error"


--- UseNet To RIME Gateway {at} 4/2/05 12:47:52 AM ---