-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Vicki Rosenzweig wrote: | At 06:17 PM 6/14/03 -0700, Sean Barrett wrote: | |> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- |> Hash: SHA1 |> |> Geoffrey Thomas wrote: |> | Apparently so. Free speech, though constitutionally guaranteed, |> | is not practically guaranteed - just look at the [[Dixie Chicks]] |> | after they said something unfortunate. |> |> Wow! I hadn't heard that the Federal government punished them. What |> was their sentence? |> |> </sarcasm> Here's a clue for any products of the American public |> education industry: the Bill of Rights is a list of things the |> /government/ is not allowed to do. It says /nothing whatsoever/ about |> what individuals may or may not do. | | | In your eagerness to make a point, you may have overlooked that you | are the only person to mention the Bill of Rights in this context.
I did not overlook the mention of "constitutional guarantee[s]" in the message I replied to. The Bill of Rights is the part of the Constitution that discusses "free speech."
| If the result of my stating position X is that large corporation Y takes | actions that cost me large amounts of money, when said corporation | has no business reason for doing so, *that is retaliation*. Being | legal doesn't make it right, and doesn't mean it's not an attempt to | prevent me--or the Dixie Chicks--from promoting that position.
In your opinion, it is not right. In my opinion, it is both right and /vastly/ superior to any alternative I can think of. Do you really think that people should be forced at gunpoint to host the Chicks and to buy their CDs whether they want to or not?
- -- ~ Sean Barrett | Aperientur oculi vestri et eritis ~ sean@epoptic.com | sicut dii scientes bonum et malum.