| Subject: | Re: Busted Bicycle Riders |
| Date: | 08/31/2004 04:20 AM |
| From: | snjr |
|
This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0191_01C48FA4.62C8ECC0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Ed said: "Of course, there have been times when content neutral restrictions have been found to have been found to be justified, but your statement that the first amendment does not protect "PROTEST" is downright stupid." Actually, Ed, your inability to read a post without responding emotionally is STUPID, but typical of a reactionary. Please read my post again and tell me where I said the first amendment does not protect protest. Here is what I said; "BTW, in case anyone intends to respond with the BS line of "it's our right to protest;" please don't be so ignorant. Our First Amendment right is to peaceably assemble, not PROTEST, or infringe upon other people's rights." Even in your own examples, the word "protest" doesn't appear. I suppose you also believe we live in a democracy? The fact is, WE DO NOT HAVE A RIGHT TO PROTEST. WE POSSES A RIGHT TO PEACEABLY ASSEMBLE. DOES THAT MEAN THAT ONE CAN PEACEFULLY PROTEST? SURE BUT THAT DOESN'T MAKE OUR RIGHT A "RIGHT TO PROTEST" NOR IMPEDE TRAFFIC, OR HIT SOMEONE YOU DON'T AGREE WITH LIKE SO MANY "PROTESTERS" APPARENTLY BELIEVE. The reason using phrases like "right to protest" is so STUPID and dangerous is because people like the critical mass morons decide that "protest" means aggressive in your face behavior which it clearly does not. ------=_NextPart_000_0191_01C48FA4.62C8ECC0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN"> <HTML><HEAD> <META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1"> <META content="MSHTML 6.00.2800.1400" name=GENERATOR> <STYLE></STYLE> </HEAD> <BODY bgColor=#ffffff> <DIV>Ed said: "Of course, there have been times when content neutral restrictions have been found to have been found to be justified, but your statement that the first amendment does not protect "PROTEST" is downright stupid." </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Actually, Ed, your inability to read a post without responding emotionally is STUPID, but typical of a reactionary. Please read my post again and tell me where I said the first amendment does not protect protest. Here is what I said; </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>"BTW, in case anyone intends to respond with the BS line of "it's our right to protest;" please don't be so ignorant. Our First Amendment right is to peaceably assemble, not PROTEST, </FONT><FONT face=Arial size=2>or infringe upon other people's rights."</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Even in your own examples, the word "protest" doesn't appear. I suppose you also believe we live in a democracy?</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>The fact is, WE DO NOT HAVE A RIGHT TO PROTEST. WE POSSES A RIGHT TO PEACEABLY ASSEMBLE. DOES THAT MEAN THAT ONE CAN PEACEFULLY PROTEST? SURE BUT THAT DOESN'T MAKE OUR RIGHT A "RIGHT TO PROTEST" NOR IMPEDE TRAFFIC, OR HIT SOMEONE YOU DON'T AGREE WITH LIKE SO MANY "PROTESTERS" APPARENTLY BELIEVE.</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>The reason using phrases like "right to protest" is so STUPID and dangerous is because people like the critical mass morons decide that "protest" means aggressive in your face behavior which it clearly does not. </FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2> </FONT></DIV></BODY></HTML> ------=_NextPart_000_0191_01C48FA4.62C8ECC0-- |
