🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Oct30.165406.5853@netcom.com> strnlght@netcom.com (David Sternlight) writes:
>But it depends on interpretation. Regulating channels is not the
>same as regulating speech.
	Perhaps but free speech DOES apply to the electronic media.

>A strict constructionist would say that one can say what one likes into 
>the air via one's unaided voice. But as soon as technical means 
>intervene (such as the use of a megaphone in a public park, or the 
>use of e-mail) the government has the right to regulate those means. 
	Strict constructionism is a strategem used by those so called 
	"conservatives" who want to let technology obsolete the constitution.
	They don't really believe in the principle of free speech and they 
	are eagerly awaiting the day when everyone communicates through 
	media other than word of mouth and then they can so encumber 
	speech (vis-a-vis the norm) that they effectively control it.
	The important thing about speech is the communication involved
	not the medium through which it is accomplished.  Those who would
	deny this are actually hostile to true freedom and are afraid of
	the new and alien ideas that freedom brings.
	

>One is still free to talk,and thus the protection isn't violated.
	Right.  And if you fall for this your freedom as well as mine is
	in danger.


>By the way, even strict construction has limits, as in the Supreme
>Court decision that the right to free speech does not extend to
>falsely crying "Fire!" in a crowded theater.
	*Even* strict construction has limits?  Surely you mean
	*especially* strict construction. ;-)