Re: Habeas Corpus Appeal to Michael - Save Ed From Lethal Ejection

[jEdD <jedd>]

Anthony J. Rzepela wrote:
> 
> jEdD wrote:
> 
> > because I don't think you are doing it correctly.  There's no important
> > state interest at stake here...and Ed's not screaming "Fire" in a
> > crowded theater...he's just annoying you.
> 
> But the chaos and fear yelling "Fire" causes are among
> the reasons it is not kosher by government standards. I'm
> not going so far as to say that he's causing chaos and fear,
> but what the government can do to regulate speech, and
> voluntary agreement to behave or not behave in a certain
> way, is apples and oranges.

I agree. The first amendment only prohibits the government from
silencing people.  Michael can bounce us all and we can't sue him
(hehe).  I didn't bring up the free speech analogy, I just responded to
it (but I should have also made the point you made).  One other point
though...we weren't talking about "voluntary agreement" about how people
would behave here, we were talking about whether Ed should be kicked
out.  THAT is apples and oranges.

> > And, maybe its my (hopeful) imagination, but I also think I've seen
> > fewer expressions of the mindless hero worship and sainthood that some
> > people on this list burden Patti Smith with.
> 
> You think it's a good thing that the people who used
> to post that traffic no longer feel comfortable doing so?
> 
> Wow.

Sure. Why not?  Maybe they've thought about how silly they looked.  If
awareness of the possibillity of criticism makes one rethink whether
they should say something or not...maybe they shouldn't say it.  Its not
forced silence, its a personal choice issue.  Peer pressure isn't always
bad.