On Sat, 9 Jun 2001 CeejEngine@aol.com wrote:

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 respecting speech, even if we accept rights as priviliges or immunities. -- ____________________________________________________________________ "...where annual election ends, tyranny begins;" Thomas Jefferson & Samuel Adams The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage@ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------