On Mon, 10 Nov 2003 14:34:18 -0500, Brice Yokem <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

>Mr Yokem,
>
>yes, I would just be as upset.
>does this answer your question?
>
>Now I'd like an answer:
>are you upset with the way the peacefull and non-agressive freedom-of-
>speech is handled by or in the name of the president?
>
>Michael
>
>---------------------------
>
>If you would be just as upset, why did you say they should be arrested?

Very easy answer:
vandalism and destroying public or others people property has nothing to do
with free-speech. That is a criminal act.
The person who got arrested was jut holding up a sign to show his protest.
He did not use foul language neither did he destroy anybodys property.
However you threw him in a category with criminals when you made the
comparison with vandals.


>
>As far as how upset I am, I have already answered that question.
>

When and where did I miss that?


>* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
>* etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *

* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
* etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *