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

[Tom Hansen]

http://www.notonthepalouse.com/The_Open_Letter.htm


*************************************************

"When people sin, everybody has to pay."

- Douglas Wilson of Wilson, Inc. (dba Christ Church) (June 7, 2002)

For more details:  http://www.NotOnThePalouse.com

*************************************************

-----Original Message-----
From: vision2020-bounces at moscow.com [mailto:vision2020-bounces at moscow.com]
On Behalf Of Bill London
Sent: Sunday, January 21, 2007 12:27 PM
To: kjajmix1 at msn.com; sslund at adelphia.net; heirdoug at netscape.net
Cc: vision2020 at moscow.com
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] If You Look Young, Don't Buy Spray Paint ;-)

Sure, be glad to............
Begin with the Constitution, Bill of Rights, First Amendment, right of free
speech...with some very precise exceptions (yelling fire in a crowded
theatre), we all have the right to speak our minds on political matters (or
write it for others to read).  What about that is hard to understand?  That
defines what I meant by "legitimate" speech.
Specifically, the phrase "Hitler Youth" was written in chalk (no property
damage) on a sidewalk (not private property) and it was a political message.
The point of the message was that the NSA students are not allowed to think
for themselves.  When they agree to enroll at NSA, they vow to retain the
beliefs and perspectives of that funny little fundamentalist brand of piety.
BL






----- Original Message ----- 
From: <heirdoug at netscape.net>
To: <kjajmix1 at msn.com>; <london at moscow.com>; <sslund at adelphia.net>
Cc: <vision2020 at moscow.com>
Sent: Saturday, January 20, 2007 7:08 PM
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] If You Look Young, Don't Buy Spray Paint ;-)


> 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.
>

=======================================================
 List services made available by First Step Internet, 
 serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.   
               http://www.fsr.net                       
          mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
=======================================================