NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #27/NN_1992_27.iso/spool/alt/fan/rushlim/8628

Internet Message Format | 1992-11-17 | 3.7 KB

Xref: sparky alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:8628 alt.rush-limbaugh:9745 alt.politics.clinton:17193
Path: sparky!uunet!caen!spool.mu.edu!studsys.mscs.mu.edu!marcr
From: [e-mail] (Marc Rassbach)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Liberals DO oppose First Amendment rights
Date: 15 Nov 1992 19:25:32 GMT
Organization: Marquette University - Department MSCS
Lines: 61
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: studsys.mscs.mu.edu

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Marc N. Barrett) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> Mark 'Mark' Sachs <[e-mail]> writes:
>>Perhaps my memory fails me, but I don't recall too many significant
>>instances of "liberals" fighting free speech, beyond a few trivial
>>Perhaps you can point out a few opposing examples for us?
>   I would be happy to.  A few weeks ago, some femists here at Iowa State
>started really pushing the proposed Equal Rights Amendment to the Iowa
>Constitution.  They put signs up EVERYWHERE pushing the admendment and
>advertizing rallies by true feminazis like Eleanor Smeal.  Many of the
>signs were outright male-bashing, such as the ones that headlined
>"WE REMEMBER ANITA HILL!!!!"

Ok.  We have posters advertising for the amendment.  And the gonverment
didn't take them down.  Free speech is protected.

>   I eventually decided to put up some signs of my own.  I had received
>an 11"x17" flyer in the mail from a group opposing the Iowa ERA.  I
>had the flyer reduced to 8.5"x14", and started posting copies around the
>campus.  It did not take long for me to notice that my signs would
>disappear not longer after I'd post them.  Neither I nor anybody else
>touched any of the signs posted by the feminists, but my signs were
>very rapidly torn down.

Ok.  You have signs against the amendment.  And the GOVERNMENT has not
been accused of taking them down.  Free speech is still protected.

Now, a KEY question:
Was YOUR sign(s) 'approved' by the campus group that approves posters?
(every campus I've been on requires this.  Anything not approved is
subject to being torn down.)
If not, you have nothing to complain about.  The signs are provided
by the school, and they can regulate them.  Like Rush says "It's
MY radio show" and he can have whatever viewpoint he wants.

>   My experiences with my anti-ERA signs were by no means unique.  I
>was told by a friend who is involved with the local Campus Crusade
>for Christ that they have a terrible time keeping signs up.  The signs
>
>   All of this leads me to the solid conclusion that conservatives

Funny, I'm lead to the conclusion you have signs that are not approved
are being posted.  And un-approved posters get ripped down.

>**IS** fully protected by the First Amendment, but liberals refuse to
>accept this.  Conservatives, however, always respect the First Amendment
>rights of everybody, regardless of opposing viewpoints.

Ahhhh.  The constitution limits the power of the government wrt speech.
How do your examples show Liberals getting the government to violate
your free speech rights?

In the case of the posters being ripped down, I bet if posters
mentioning AD&D gaming or remiding everyone to celebrate the
Solstice with a circle ceremony they'd be ripped down.  Perhaps
by your friend, if not by others in the CCforC.

--
Marc Rassbach    [e-mail]    If you take my advice, that
MS-DOS - it's not   [e-mail]    is your problem, not mine!
my problem!     If it was said on UseNet, it must be true.
   Unix - It's a nice place to live, but you don't want to visit there.