Reply #73: Ok let me clear it up for you...

[RapidCreek]

You stated:

Several people cite " free speech zones " as justification for violence and the threat of violence now to suppress the speech of others.

Who in this thread made any such citation? In that you assert there were several....let's have the names of the posters or at the very least the number of the posts that they made. You reframed some posters opinions in your own terms and argued against that which was never said. Your approach smacks of Freeperville and defuses logical debate. Then again, maybe that was your intention.

Next you state:

The Clinton DoJ wanted a means to suppress abortion clinic demonstrators and developed the concept that it was constitutionally justifiable to place limits on where those demonstrators could exercise their right of free speech. The left thought this was a lovely idea, the right said it was dictatorial intrusion on the rights of a free citizen. The left won the argument.

The Clinton DoJ didn't develop the concept that it was constitutionally justifiable to place limits on where demonstrators could exercise their right to free speech, as the links I posted make effusively clear. In addition, the department of Justice does not have the power to legislate law or determine constitutionally justifiable practices....It is the responsibility of respective State and federal legislators to put into law, policies regarding the establishment of "free speech zones". The constitutionality of these laws has and is being decided by the chain of supreme courts when and if they are challenged. I would invite you to supply a US congressional resolution which sets forth a blanket, law, supporting the establishment of DoJ mandated "free speech zones" and a SCOTUS decision which affirms the constitutional legitimacy of such a law and renders moot any challenges it might incur. Good luck... Further, I would appreciate it if you would supply a link to the Reno DoJ "policy" for which you insist, she and DLC Bill deserve credit.

Your assertion about the origins of free speech zones was intentionally pernicious....It is not your declaration that Mr. Rove should enjoy his right to speak uninterrupted at a private venue, which would lead one to assume you are a freeper...no, it is your rhetorical methodology which gives that impression.

Indeed...maybe we should keep our eye on the ball...It was you playing the gotcha game....rather poorly, I might add, and it was I who called you on it....and I'll do it again. If you want to pontificate, get your facts straight. In absence of that, please refrain from spreading Drudge's right wing disinformation and propaganda in an attempt to validate your points...it stinks up the place.

RC