03-28-2003, 06:52 PM
|
 |
Registered User
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Culver City, CA, US
Posts: 226
|
|
Between what?
Two opposing thoughts. In context, if we can listen to Charlie Daniels as well as Natalie Maines, we might then be able to think for ourselves.
Quote:
Originally posted by jseal
I'm sure you agree that the freedom of speech (Amendment I) to which I believe you refer is not absolute.
As an example, you are not free to shout "Fire" in a crowded auditorium. Nor should you be, as such behavior endangers the general welfare.
Given that such constraints exit in a civilized society, what is your point here?
|
The point is that political dissent is allowed, protected, and should be cherished and defended (even fought for!).
Cheney and Rumsfeld have lied lied lied to us time and time again over the last few weeks, which to me constitutes an egregious distortion of their right to free speech, considering that they are appointed officials of our government, and that deaths, both of combatants and civilians, have resulted from their words.
|