The discussion centers around the concept of free speech, particularly in the context of government restrictions and the implications of "free speech zones" as implemented during the Bush administration. Participants explore the balance between political speech and potential limitations, raising questions about the nature of free speech and its absolute versus conditional status.
Participants generally do not reach consensus on the nature of free speech, with multiple competing views on whether it should be absolute or subject to limitations. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the criteria for restricting speech and the implications of such restrictions.
Limitations in the discussion include varying definitions of free speech, differing opinions on the role of government in regulating speech, and unresolved questions about the balance between individual rights and public safety.
Nevertheless, there is a difference between havng a special area sectioned off, and putting that section so far away as to render the free speech of the protesters almost meaningless. Bush is pushing the limits of the law(can't say for sure he is breaking the law) for political, not safety reasons.
Well, maybe you should have a 'knee jerk' reaction against other people, either...especially since THIS post of your, after you calmed down a bit, seems a lot more reasonable than where you started, huh?
Actually, I have been calm since the beginning, and you are assuming a knee jerk reaction. My actions thus far on this board have been fully thought through :) If you feel I need pruning, banning, or anything else, you are more than welcome to do so. I enjoy ruffling your's and Adam's feathers, but you pointed yourselves out for the doing
