[at-l] Open Mike For Doyle

[DaRedhead@aol.com (DaRedhead@aol.com)]

In a message dated 1/17/02 7:37:02 PM US Eastern Standard Time, 
RoksnRoots@aol.com writes:


> but my understanding of the constitution was that an unpopular individual 
> and his 
> views were protected from the popular politics of the larger group in 
> 

I am almost amazed at how you are interpreting this whole thing.  Almost, but 
not quite.  A few hundred people spent their hard earned money and travel 
time to be at the Gathering, to be with their fellow hikers in a weekend of 
camaraderie and fellowship and learning and fun.  Lots of the attendees had 
just finished thru hiking.  And because we think that we had the right for 
the weekend to be about those things and not about someone getting up there 
and insulting everyone in the room, you are now trying to make it sound like 
we don't believe in freedom of speech.  When what we've all been saying is 
that he IS entitled to his opinions, BUT not entitled to spout them in that 
particular venue.  If you accept a speaking engagement at a Catholic school, 
and the purpose of the speech was to discuss the various Saints, but instead 
decided to give a speech voicing your "opinion" that (insert whatever 
insulting things that have nothing to do with Saints here) - would the 
students and faculty have a right to be angry about it, without it meaning 
that they didn't believe in free speech?  

That was the point, in case you missed it.


--- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts ---
multipart/alternative
  text/plain (text body -- kept)
  text/html
---