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
     respecting speech, even if we accept rights as priviliges or
     immunities

   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