Re: Here's a post to get things going again

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

On 10/11/07, Valdis.Kletnieks () vt edu <Valdis.Kletnieks () vt edu> wrote:

> > Was that an attempt at cleverness? Careful though, its definitely
> > troll territory...
>
> You're the one who asserted the existence of "non-protected low-class speech".

There's all kinds of unprotected speech and I didn't create them -
they're described, often in great detail, via the documents ruling our
society.


> > We mock that which we don't, and don't have the capacity to, understand!
>
> OK, I admit it, I don't understand the concept of non-protected low-class
> speech.

You mean "unprotected" right? And as described, but clearly in such a
way as to be over your head, "low-class" isn't a subcategory of
"unprotected speech". And not all "low-class speech" is unprotected.
But to explain that to YOU would take years...

> As I read the decision in 'People vs. Larry Flynt', the US Supreme
> Court doesn't recognize such a beast either, so I'm in good company...

What part of that decision said this? Because I actually HAVE read
this decision, along with LOTS of other SC decisions, and lots of laws
and, well, you get the idea. Based on your ability to understand the
basic concepts that I, and Dennis just recently, have TRIED to beat
into your thick, dull skull I doubt very seriously you made it any
closer to this decision than the movie (which was pretty good, if not
completely accurate).
_______________________________________________
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.