home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
/ NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #27 / NN_1992_27.iso / spool / alt / rushlim / 9975 < prev    next >
Encoding:
Internet Message Format  |  1992-11-18  |  1.3 KB
  1. Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:9975 alt.politics.clinton:17416
  2. Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton
  3. Path: sparky!uunet!snorkelwacker.mit.edu!tamsun.tamu.edu!venus.tamu.edu!lav4208
  4. From: lav4208@venus.tamu.edu
  5. Subject: Re: Libero/consevatives DO oppose First Amendment rights ?
  6. Message-ID: <18NOV199215413224@venus.tamu.edu>
  7. News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
  8. Sender: news@tamsun.tamu.edu (Read News)
  9. Organization: Texas A&M University, Academic Computing Services
  10. References: <rdippold.721592462@qualcom> <92317.231441MBS110@psuvm.psu.edu>  <15NOV199214193432@venus.tamu.edu> <1992Nov17.174935.261@hsh.com>
  11. Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 21:41:00 GMT
  12. Lines: 16
  13.  
  14. In article <1992Nov17.174935.261@hsh.com>, paul@hsh.com writes...
  15.  
  16. [...]
  17.  
  18. > 
  19. >It's a shame EVERYONE doesn't show respect for free speech.  However, a cynic 
  20. >might note that "threats if they are touched" may speak volumes, both about 
  21. >conservative defense of free speech AND about private-property rights.....
  22. > 
  23.  
  24. So conservatives ripping down liberal signs and defending conservative signs
  25. is constitutionally correct while liberals ripping down conservative signs and
  26. defending liberal ones is constitutionally incorrect, even for the same
  27. amendments? (or am i misreading the obvious implied double standard here)
  28. Please elaborate.
  29.  
  30.