Republican hypocrisy on display.

Right to bear arms? Absolute!  Right to free speech? Not so much.

From Crooks and Liars...

Limited-Government Idaho Conservatives Don't Want You To See Pre-Marital Sex on TV
from Crooks and Liars by Nicole Belle

It's amazing how little their stated beliefs actually align with their actual actions. Conservatives purport to be against big government; they sneer at the nanny state they claim liberals want. But when all is said and done, it seems like conservatives have no problem expanding government when it comes to your bedroom:

    A number of Idaho lawmakers are targeting a topic they say should be taboo on television: premarital sex.

    And they're taking a symbolic stand.

    Lawmakers are against references to premarital sex in dramas, comedies, reality and talk shows as well as advertisements.

    "We need to take a stand and stand up for for the morality of what is best for the citizens of Idaho," said Rep. Darrell Bolz, (R-Caldwell).

    The measure that easily passed the house state affairs committee would urge the federal government and the FCC to prohibit the portrayal, even implied, or even the discussion of premarital sex on TV between 6 a.m. and 10 p.m.

Leave it to Republicans to not understand the basic concept of the First Amendment. If only these Republicans felt as squeamish and horrified at the sight of ignorance, poverty and violence, and expended some energy trying to alleviate them in real life -- instead of just pretending something doesn't exist.

Yep - even them

Liberals - Preotecting Your Rights

Liberals fight for everyone's right to free speech - including the right to protest by burning the flag. Some see that as a bad thing. They believe that only THEIR free speech rights matter.

Free Speech - Video

I am a strong proponent of "free speech." But this works both ways - protesters have a right to protest, but when the person they are protesting begins to speak, that person also has a right to be heard. I think the point of this video is to chastise President Bush, but in this case I don't believe he did anything wrong.

Protest vocally up to the point that your protests interfere with another person's right to free speech. Sort of like the old adage of the sixties - your right to swing your fist around in the air ends at the point of my nose.

Pat Condell: Free Speech - Love It Or Lose It

It's For You Own Good

Penn And Teller on Free Speech (Video)

Did You Know - Freedom of Speech

Hmmm....

The following clip from a fairly conservatice rag intrigues me - and leaves me confused on where our new Supereme Court will take us. Following the "Bong Hits for Jesus" decision, it just isn't clear what types of free speech are free. I'll bet, however, that before long a lot of other freedoms of speech will be gone. It's just a matter of time before we become GWB's religious nation.

Putting its recent ruling on student speech into practice, the Supreme Court on Friday rejected a school district's appeal of a ruling that it violated a student's rights by censoring his anti-Bush T-shirt.

A seventh-grader from Vermont was suspended for wearing a shirt that bore images of cocaine and a martini glass _ but also had messages calling President Bush a lying drunk driver who abused cocaine and marijuana, and the "chicken-hawk-in-chief" who was engaged in a "world domination tour."

From Newsday.com.

Did You Know - Free Speech Dies

The days of free speech are over - the government is a private entity owned by the Bush administration. From Seattle PI - click here to read the whole story...

DENVER -- White House officials can exclude dissenters from taxpayer-funded appearances by President Bush without violating the protesters' rights, according to lawyers for volunteers who helped eject three people from a hall where Bush was to speak.

"The president may constitutionally make viewpoint-based exclusionary determinations in conveying his own message," the attorneys said in a filing last week. "So in following the instructions of the White House and carrying out its viewpoint-based exclusions, Casper and Klinkerman did not violate any of plaintiffs' constitutional rights."

Political Propaganda