Posted by: Daniel Carrera
on June 28, 2005 08:49 AM
> No, it isn't. First, the Supreme Court has said that commercial speech does not deserve the same protection under the First Amendment that ordinary speech does.
Who cares what the YOUR law says? Since when does US law have a monopoly on what constitutes freedom of speech? This is not a matter of whether the action is legal or illegal in one particular country. This is an issue of right and wrong, and is independent of legallity.
It would be a very sad day when right vs wrong are reduced to legal vs illegal. It'd be even sadder if only US law mattered.
> Hence, Truth in Advertising Laws are not unconstitutional.
And why should I care about your constitution? And why would constitutionality under US law be a determining factor in this discussion? This is about whether NF is doing right in letting MS present their campaign here, and I say they are because freedom of speech extends to Microsoft expressing their POV here.
> That you have something to say does not mean I have to publish it.
You really seem to confuse right and wrong with "am I legally allowed to...". I'm sorry for you, this is very sad.
> Third, the First Amendment<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...
I dislike your implicit assumption that I care about your first amednment. Why should your law have any say on right and wrong?
> It says nothing about non-governmental entities excercising their right to choose what they do and do not publish.
Which brings us back to your confusing "legal" with "right". Can't you discuss issues on merit? You seem to feel that as long as the police won't punish you for doing something it must be OK to do it.
Learn about Linux
Download Linux
Get Linux help
Re:Oh, the Irony...
Posted by: Daniel Carrera on June 28, 2005 08:49 AMWho cares what the YOUR law says? Since when does US law have a monopoly on what constitutes freedom of speech? This is not a matter of whether the action is legal or illegal in one particular country. This is an issue of right and wrong, and is independent of legallity.
It would be a very sad day when right vs wrong are reduced to legal vs illegal. It'd be even sadder if only US law mattered.
> Hence, Truth in Advertising Laws are not unconstitutional.
And why should I care about your constitution? And why would constitutionality under US law be a determining factor in this discussion? This is about whether NF is doing right in letting MS present their campaign here, and I say they are because freedom of speech extends to Microsoft expressing their POV here.
> That you have something to say does not mean I have to publish it.
You really seem to confuse right and wrong with "am I legally allowed to...". I'm sorry for you, this is very sad.
> Third, the First Amendment<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...
I dislike your implicit assumption that I care about your first amednment. Why should your law have any say on right and wrong?
> It says nothing about non-governmental entities excercising their right to choose what they do and do not publish.
Which brings us back to your confusing "legal" with "right". Can't you discuss issues on merit? You seem to feel that as long as the police won't punish you for doing something it must be OK to do it.
Daniel.
#