Tony, I guess you are young. Using "Nazi" as you do below is offensive to
anyone who has the slightest sensitivity to what it implies.  The word never
lends itself to flippancy.Other than that, I, for one,  have no quarrel with
your stance re corporate speech on which, by the way, there is a
considerable literature and case law, almost all in the second half of the
twentieth century and since, that opposes your view; before that, even the
Supreme Court agreed with you! Kinda amazing!
Best wishes.

----- Original Message -----
From: Tony Abdo <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Monday, January 15, 2001 2:23 PM
Subject: Re: [CHOMSKY] What limits should be placed on free speech?


> Sorry, Wat.     You take me out of the garbage can where you had tossed
> me, and I don't even remember what genocide it was I denied!     I'm
> practically a total NAZI.      But things for giving me yet another
> chance to have the priviledge of entering your sacred e-mail box.
>
> Unfortunately we seem to have some sort of communication problem.     I
> answered already that I would limit SEVERELY... all paid 'free speech'
> of corporate advertising.     And now you demand that I answer the
> question that I answered, hinting so subtly that I hadn't!    Well I
> have, and I will answer the question again.     Listen up.
>
> I'll even go so far as to advocate shutting corporate 'mouths' for good.
> Let's entirely eliminate any speech for 'individuals' that have the last
> names Inc., Limited, Corp. ,etc.    Seems harsh.     But these
> 'individuals' are bloodless vampires sucking our blood.
>
> I want to be cruel to these 'individuals'.    Even if they wish to help
> me out in some way.     I'm even for the violent suppression of their
> 'free speech', even if all they want is to just wish me to have a fine
> day while shopping whatever and wherever.....
>
> There.     I don;t think I can be too much more explicit on how against
> 'free speeh' I am.     I'm a NAZI when it comes to that!
>
> Best wishes, Comrade Wat.    Glad to be back on good terms with you.
>
> Tony
> ________________________________
> <Stanley Fish argues that all speech has consequences. Now I might think
> that Tony's past performance as a genocide denier should warn me to not
> read his posts. However, after reinstalling a mail client without
> explicitly filtering certain individuals to trash, I'm granting him an
> opportunity to again assail my attention.
>
> Tony, the question posed by F. Leon Wilson was "Is there ever a time
> when the rights of a human being should be limited in the areas of the
> expressing of ones personal feeling and ideas? What limits should be
> placed on free speech?"
>
> If at some point Tony would like to actually address the question I'd
> consider reading his response.>