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 *