>Free speech rights have never been unbridled and that was the moot point.
**** I don't know that anyone was arguing that. Therefore the issue is nonexistent. However, incendiary, inflammatory, subversive and other such adjectives to define limits of free-speech are meaningless, and thus beside the point. That is my point. At 4:41 PM -0700 9/5/05, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >Content-type: text/html; charset=us-ascii >Content-language: en >Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT >Content-disposition: inline > >Questions and answers...........is there a point? Free speech rights >have never been unbridled and that was the moot point. Australian >connection? For those who insist otherwise and continue to abuse >this privilege known as free speech by inciting mayhem, in the name >of God or religion, perhaps they should heed the Australian advice >and consider taking up residency elsewhere. BTW, this is the >Australian Govt's point of view. Other than that, you need to seek >clarification from the said government for finer details. > >KJD. > > >_______________________________________________ >assam mailing list >assam@assamnet.org >http://assamnet.org/mailman/listinfo/assam_assamnet.org _______________________________________________ assam mailing list assam@assamnet.org http://assamnet.org/mailman/listinfo/assam_assamnet.org
