In a message dated 6/9/01 11:53:11 PM Eastern Daylight Time, ravage@einstein.ssz.com writes:
In a message dated 6/9/01 11:35:48 PM Eastern Daylight Time, ravage@einstein.ssz.com writes:
Bullshit, the 1st makes no such distinction. With respect to libel, or any other form of speech it only says it isn't a federal issue. Note that no
Yeah, but then you've got the 14th, which has been used to apply the Bill of Rights to the states (due process clause), so that means that no gov. can restrict free speech. As for libel, its damn hard to make stick- public figures have a hight standard, which includes proving actual malice. Fun times.
But the 14'th only speaks of 'priviliges and immunities' it never(!) uses the term 'right' and a right is clearly not a privilige or immunity (read the first two para's of the DoI for explanation of 'right').
If anything the 14'th would prevent states from making any(!) laws
Right, reading it literally. But the supreme court has interpreted the "due process" clause to include rights granted under the bill of rights (using the incorperation doctrine). I know it isn't in the 14th itself, but the way the court has interpreted it has given it this meaning. Look at New York v. Griswold (i think) for a good example of this. The court applied unreasonable search and siezure to a state using the 14th. The same goes for free speech. Ender