| Should the First Amendment be revoke for some? |
by subbywan |
2006-11-19 12:55:59 |
| Killer taunts victim's family over the Internet
|
|
[ Reply ] |
|
*ringing* | by Nea | 2006-11-19 12:55:59 |
|
oops. Sowwy (n/t) | by subbywan | 2004-01-13 16:32:26 |
|
I wasn't scolding, just being informational. (n/t) | by Nea | 2004-01-13 16:34:58 |
|
Nope. | by zbear | 2004-01-13 16:36:22 |
|
would you feel the same if he were writing to you | by subbywan | 2004-01-13 16:38:05 |
|
Of course not. | by McGowan | 2004-01-13 16:48:13 |
|
I'd be mad | by zbear | 2004-01-13 16:48:40 |
|
hmmmm | by Reddy | 2004-01-13 16:49:21 |
|
Not really valid. | by Naruki | 2004-01-13 16:44:50 |
|
There is a distinct difference | by Llyr | 2004-01-13 16:46:23 |
|
Even if he were not lying... | by Naruki | 2004-01-13 16:47:41 |
|
They don't have to be libel. | by subbywan | 2004-01-13 16:49:14 |
|
I disagree | by zbear | 2004-01-13 16:57:09 |
|
Obscene material can be libel. | by subbywan | 2004-01-13 16:58:40 |
|
Not in this case | by zbear | 2004-01-13 17:00:40 |
|
Fair enough (n/t) | by subbywan | 2004-01-13 17:02:31 |
|
Ah, but you are wrong there. | by Naruki | 2004-01-13 17:30:08 |
|
I keep asking myself that ... | by subbywan | 2004-01-13 17:42:04 |
|
As for the first point... | by Naruki | 2004-01-13 17:48:32 |
|
And only under certain conditions | by subbywan | 2004-01-13 17:53:59 |
|
Um...nope | by zbear | 2004-01-13 18:13:39 |
|
If that *was* true as a blanket statement | by subbywan | 2004-01-13 18:16:45 |
|
But it IS true... | by zbear | 2004-01-13 18:19:35 |
|
Child porn is not illegal due to any | by Naruki | 2004-01-13 18:26:10 |
|
How does literature hurt the child? | by subbywan | 2004-01-13 18:26:56 |
|
Um... yep. | by Naruki | 2004-01-13 18:24:00 |
|
In the world? | by zbear | 2004-01-13 18:30:14 |
|
Which we already know is false | by subbywan | 2004-01-13 18:32:11 |
|
I was going to make the same point. | by Naruki | 2004-01-13 18:39:00 |
|
I still maintain they're not rights, | by subbywan | 2004-01-13 18:41:40 |
|
I'm usually uncomfortable with that saying. | by Naruki | 2004-01-13 18:58:51 |
|
Actually, I'd like to take issue with your | by adiplomat | 2004-01-13 19:02:19 |
|
Well, we don't have it extending to everyone | by subbywan | 2004-01-13 19:08:24 |
|
Absolutely! | by zbear | 2004-01-13 18:48:52 |
|
But we've already shown that free speech *isn't* | by subbywan | 2004-01-13 18:51:12 |
|
Noooo.... | by zbear | 2004-01-13 19:00:27 |
|
Even before the PA | by subbywan | 2004-01-13 19:11:37 |
|
Even before that grotesquely misnamed act, | by adiplomat | 2004-01-13 19:20:37 |
|
Well, that's a bit twisted! | by zbear | 2004-01-13 18:41:20 |
|
Yes. It's moved on | by subbywan | 2004-01-13 18:43:28 |
|
What exactly are you "depriving" yourself of? | by Naruki | 2004-01-13 18:46:26 |
|
Who decides? | by zbear | 2004-01-13 18:57:09 |
|
Sorry, gotta go. | by Naruki | 2004-01-13 19:00:16 |
|
Ciaooooo (n/t) | by zbear | 2004-01-13 19:01:35 |
|
But it seemed in this case | by bjmjdj | 2004-01-13 17:14:53 |
|
SO I'm slow in posting | by bjmjdj | 2004-01-13 17:17:00 |
|
I would expect the ISP | by Didactylos | 2004-01-13 17:10:23 |
|
Beware the slippery slope... | by Slamlander | 2004-01-13 18:26:11 |
|
But at the same time, we have to protect | by subbywan | 2004-01-13 18:29:42 |
|
In this case, while I'm sad for the vic | by Slamlander | 2004-01-13 18:57:02 |
|
Same question I asked above: | by subbywan | 2004-01-13 18:59:31 |
|
Yeah, absolutely | by Slamlander | 2004-01-13 19:27:21 |
|
The problem, as I see it, is that the criminal | by Blackbyrd2 | 2004-01-13 19:50:11 |
