From: "David Blair" 

Ms. Folkenberg, please tell me where the First Amendment enters into this
discussion? Dear lady, are you so daft as to possibly think it has a damned
thing to do with this?

1. Phil is a British twit. He is not eligible for its protections.

2. Congess has not threatened to enter into a law regulating this discussion.

Please. Lose the first amendment angles and come back with something better
and valid.

Besides, even if he is free to express his puffed up and turgid opinions,
others are free to respond to them as well. Nothing about frree speech says
anyone has to listen, or respect, what comes as a result of the practice of
free speech. Free speech says you can express your views.

It doesn't mean those views are intelligent.

Something you, by the way, should be thankful for as well.

But- in case you're confused... here's the first amendment, in all its
glory. Read and comprehend:

"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. "







"Judy Folkenberg"  wrote in
message news:3E90D6CD.976B9EA7{at}mail.nlm.nih.gov...
>
>
> Gary Wiltshire wrote:
>
> > >>Shitting on my country every chance he gets hardly merits
"courtesy."
>
> I believe free speech is protected by the first amendment...an amendment I
hold
> very dear.  Both you and Phil are very opinioned...leave it at that.
>
> Or remember what Voltaire said:  "I may not like what you say, but I will
defend
> to the death, your right to say it."
>
> Right on Voltaire!
>
> Judy
>
> >
> >
>

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-4