On 11/16/2010 8:45 PM, BOB KLAHN -> BOB ACKLEY wrote:

 BK>   He shouldn't be. Freedom of speech still allows for the refusal
 BK>   to accept speech intended to be harmful.


What do you mean by refusal to accept speech intended to be harmful?
Does your  "refusal to accept" have anything to do with
preventing the speech in the first place?

--- Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2.12) Gecko/20101027