Re: cc: "too beautiful not to share"

["Brian Loe" <knobdy () gmail com>]

On 10/11/07, Brian Azzopardi <brian () gfi com> wrote:
> > Remember when that guy in England threw an egg at Clinton? I
> > completely understood him doing it - and I was totally against him
> > being able to. It was low-class - and emotional response to an
> > intellectual issue, same as booing.
>
> When does it stop being low-class? At which point do you draw the line?

Where do I draw the line for what? This discussion has encompassed
three types of speech, as I see it. You have the low-class speech such
as booing or throwing an egg, the protected political speech such as
asking a question at a "town hall meeting", letters to the editor or
other such forum, and the unprotected political speech where you "yell
down" a speaker.

The low-class speech never becomes protected or intellectual or
whatever its opposite would be.

Protected speech is always protected.

Unprotected speech can never be protected because it violates another
Person's right to free speech.


> Maybe that's why people should be allowed an 'emotional' response -
> they're too stupid to come up with a coherent intellectual argument.
> Unlike you I presume.

People are too stupid, but a Person is able to produce an argument and
there are millions of ways to get that message out these days.

And no, I'm not too stupid to do so.


> It's not as if most political campaigns are won by force of argument;
> the current, and most expensive ever, US campaign is a testament to
> that.

Its a testament to what the masses, the stupid masses, apparently want
- nothing more. If the masses finally decided they would prefer a
substantive debate of the issues, we'd get it. Market forces work the
same in politics as they do in business.
_______________________________________________
Fun and Misc security discussion for OT posts.
https://linuxbox.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/funsec
Note: funsec is a public and open mailing list.