"Steve Kramer" <skramer@cinci.rr.com> wrote in message
news:PnfQc.2469$1D4.1823@fe1.columbus.rr.com..
I'll see your opinion and raise you an opinion.
There is no freedom of speech in the sense that one speaks. The freedom
of speech is clearly directed as A) a control of the federal government
and B) regarding speechifying, not just speaking.
..
Maybe what should be done is to let people say whatever they want, but
if a guy sells quack medicine and claims it cures cancer he should be
prosecuted. It's like if a guy says cocaine should be legal he hasn't
broken any law. But if he sells cocaine that's another matter.
=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0Alan
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
hi alan - i see your point, but a light bulb can on for an idea.

1 - people have the right to say what they want, as long as it doesn't
threaten the life of public officials or operations.

2 - the kicker, which, thanks to you .  a quack can say all they want
about curing cancer.  no problem there.  but when they sell the stuff
they claim as a cure when it is not.  then, doesn't it fall under the
same type of bunco and fraud laws, where a person is claiming they have
an illegal drug they are selling and then when they get busted, claim
what they were selling what not an illegal drug, but something harmless.  =


3. the law says that if you represent that substance as an illegal drug,
then you will stand before the law the same as it was represented and
the punishment shall be the same as if the substance was an illegal
drug.

of course, all of this is subject to change, and interpretation.

~ curtis

knowledge is power - growing old is mandatory - growing wise is optional  =

"Many more men die with prostate cancer than of it. Growing old is
invariably fatal. Prostate cancer is only sometimes so."

Report this post to a moderator

[  Post Follow-up to this message ]