[Vision2020] If You Look Young, Don't Buy Spray Paint ;-)

[heirdoug at netscape.net]

Thank you Keely, Saundra, and Bill,

For making my point.

I have one question. Could either of you three individually, or as a 
chorus, please define "legitimate speech"? And is "that qualifier" 
found some where in the Constitiution? (I guess that would be two 
questions)

Do you, as the "collective" voices and poster children of the 
Intoeristas, define what is legitimate and what is illegitimate? When 
will we know for sure which it is? I would like to get that memo. (I 
guess that makes 4 questions in toto, Sorry I learned to count in 
public school)

I await your senergy sayings with stillness! If you wish you can send 
your answers to Decopauge to color coordinate them!

lemeno, Doug



And for Saundra, my thanks for posting that again. What great publicity 
for the lunacy of the left. And from the left!

And just because you can't read Right-Mind.... I will be posting may of 
Dale's profound wisdom and computer prowess regularly..

My first installment:

Free Speech Redux
For my readers who haven’t seen this before, Bill London wrote a Daily 
News “Town Crier” column back on 14 Sept. 2005 (Don’t Bury Free Speech 
In Friendship Square) where he argued that scrawling “Hitler Youth” in 
chalk in front of NSA is “legitimate and legal speech”.
In Venom2020 today, he stands fully by that column.
I stand by what I wrote. It is legitimate to use chalk on a public 
sidewalk to present your political message.
It is not legitimate to use spray paint on private property to present 
you gang wannabe message.
If you can't see the difference, I suggest you take a few moments to 
read the Bill of Rights
First, maybe it is London’s turn to read that Amendment again. Where 
does the qualifier “legitimate speech” come from? Is it only our 
Intoleristas who are arbiters of what is legitimate speech or not? 
Given their actions over the last four years, I would say so.
Second, in the 27 Sept 2005 edition of the Moscow-Pullman Daily News, 
Michael O’Neal wrote the following:
In his recent Town Crier column (Opinion, Sept. 14), Bill London smugly 
and triumphantly demonstrates that the “Hitler Youth” graffiti at New 
Saint Andrews College fails to rise to the level of vandalism and in 
fact is legally protected free speech.
One can only marvel, breathlessly, at the hypocrisy of this position. 
The issue is not about whether this malicious act meets some legal 
definition. The issue is much larger and is no less than the ongoing 
bigotry and two-facedness of some elements of our community. London 
knows that if someone had scrawled “Ragheads” on the sidewalk outside 
the Muslim center, or “N----r lovers” outside a human rights office, we 
would never hear the end of it – and rightly so. Perhaps such acts, 
too, would not legally be crimes, but they would deserve the censure of 
the community, not labored and trivial defenses.
In my view, this Town Crier column is more hateful than the original 
act that prompted it.
Michael J. O’Neal, Moscow
Hypocrisy is exactly right. Even the Moscow Human Rights Commission 
denounced this act. They did not trumpet it as an expression of 
“legitimate speech.”
Again: thank you Bill London. I couldn't have paid an Intolerista to 
say the things in the paper that you did. You made it black-and-white 
to everyone in Moscow what the real nature of the Intolerista attacks 
is all about -- and it's not about a love for the code.

And thanks for saying it again (and again…). Can I recommend that you 
write another column in the Daily News trumpeting this position? Please?



Published Saturday, January 20, 2007 1:05 PM


________________________________________________________________________
Check Out the new free AIM(R) Mail -- 2 GB of storage and 
industry-leading spam and email virus protection.