In itself, it is a sound piece of legal reasoning, it the context that makes it ridiculous. Corporations do not have use the conduct that protesters do to deliver their message to the public and to government. Hence the quotation from Anatole France.
Wojtek
On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 12:00 PM, shag carpet bomb <shag at cleandraws.com> wrote:
> it was just a recitation of the fact that we have a right to free
> speech, but that it is not unlimited, according to every increasingly
> restrictive court rulings, and that those limitations are justified
> in the interest of keeping the peace and protecting citizens.
>
> sort of, Yeah yeah, we know that this is a democracy and we know about
> the bill of rights, but here are a bunch of rulings that say that we
> can, in fact, regulate people into "free speech zones" for reasons of
> safety and that the court sez that this isn't a problem because, after
> all, it only infringes on your ability to speak to the general public
> in a certain place and time. Your message can still get out this way
> or that without necessarily causing a traffic jam or requiring that
> streets be closed down. Besides which, we have to worry about Terr
> (tm).
>
> The end.
>
>> On Oct 19, 2011, at 10:56 AM, Carrol Cox wrote:
>>> On 10/19/2011 8:49 AM, Thomas Volscho wrote:[clip]
>>>
>>> Give us a paragraph or two from it. I don't know abut others but I
>>> will not click on a link without more information on what I will
>>> find there.
>>>
>>
>> Same here (unless the poster actually intends suspense).
>>
>> —ravi
>>
>>
>>
>> ___________________________________
>> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>>
>
>
> --
> http://cleandraws.com
> Wear Clean Draws
> ('coz there's 5 million ways to kill a CEO)
>
>
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>