![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 6 of 6. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by coral on October 24, 2002, at 18:20:31
Freedom of speech, as guaranteed by the Bill of Rights of the U.S. Constitution, refers to one being restrained from speaking freely, i.e. no censorship for newspapers, individuals' rights of free speech, shall not be restrained by the government. However, the location of the free speech is important. I own a website where people can post. Since I own the website, I control who may or may not post, what posts I will allow, etc. Is that censorship? Yes. Is it a violation of the Bill of Rights? Absolutely not. No one can prohibit anyone else from opening up a website and posting what they please, short of encouraging others to break the laws of the U.S.
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 24, 2002, at 19:14:38
In reply to Constitution, posted by coral on October 24, 2002, at 18:20:31
coral,
I read your post and I was wondering if you had any case law that you are referring to that makes you conclude that you could descriminate in regards to your statement that you can control who may or may not post....
Also, you wrote that the Government can not restrain someone from speaking freely and also if you have alist of entities what constitutes the "government". For instance, would public institutions be considered part of the "government"?
I was also wondering if you had any knowledge concering restrainment by race, or religion , or sexual orientation , or gender, or pregnancy or national origen etc., in relation to your web site vs a web site that is the "governments" as to who could be restained from posting?
If you could give any more infomation , or comemnt on any case law that you have knowlge of, that establishes what you have written about the constitution of the US in relation to who or where someone can post or not post, then I would be appreciative and be better able to have a discussion with you , if you desire.
Best regards,
Lou
Posted by coral on October 25, 2002, at 5:38:12
In reply to Re: Constitution » coral, posted by Lou Pilder on October 24, 2002, at 19:14:38
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.Title VII Civil Rights Act 1964
http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/vii.htmlThe laws speak for themselves.
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 25, 2002, at 6:55:02
In reply to Re: Constitution, posted by coral on October 25, 2002, at 5:38:12
coral,
Thank you for the post of title 7
That is but one of many titles involving the issues of equal opportunity, free speech and religion that is unfolding. There are many other cases that have to be included in tandem with title 7 to make a determination of unlawfulll descrimination. Could you post any others that you may have?
Are you fimilair with:
Barnett vs West Virginia?
Tinker vs Demoins?
others?
I fyou would like to discuss this more, I would also like to do so,
Lou
Brown vs Topeka?
Posted by tina on October 25, 2002, at 8:02:00
In reply to Re: Constitution » coral, posted by Lou Pilder on October 25, 2002, at 6:55:02
Lou vs Dr Bob
hehe
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 25, 2002, at 8:06:25
In reply to Re: Constitution » Lou Pilder, posted by tina on October 25, 2002, at 8:02:00
Tina,
Good morning. Welcome to this discussion.
Lou
This is the end of the thread.
Psycho-Babble Administration | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.