OFF: Free speech entended at US University!

[M Holmes]

Paul Mather writes:

> The example I was thinking of is not the WTC/Republican Party
> Conference-type appearances.  It was a fairly recent report on the CBS
> evening news.  A specific example they cited was when Bush was doing
> some kind of whistle-stop appearance at a small town.  The anti-Bush
> protesters were herded off the beaten path, completely out of his
> sight and earshot.  However, pro-Bush supporters (or those neutral to
> him) were allowed to line Main Street and cheer and wave signs as his
> motorcade drove buy.
>
> Apparently this is standard MO at his personal appearances.

More fool Bush and his cohort. Politicians who don't see what's going on
stay uninformed and end up making the bad decisions which get 'em kicked
out.

> => What's clearly needed is another Amendment that says:
> =>
> => "Nobody has a right to never feel upset. There's upsetting shit going on.
> =>  Deal with it."

> I'm not sure that would help at all, except maybe the bank balances of
> lawyers.

The nature of people is what will always improve the bank balances of
lawyers. If only I'd realised this in my callow youth. The idea of
getting paid to argue holds a strange fascination for me.

> A corollary of the amendment would be that there are times when one
> can legitimately feel upset.

Absolutley, but it oughtn't to follow that someone can then ban whatever
it was that upset them from being said. It's incumbent on folks who
don't like what's said to argue with it, not whine for another law
banning it. Usual limits apply regarding "theatre" and "fire".

FoFP