Government scores victory against woman who can't leave her house

[softball]

A couple of observations:

Again, you are making some pretty fundamental errors in logic here. First, quoting a man who was President 200 years ago and assuming his opinion would account for the rapid increase in the flow of information and "speech" is a pretty big jump. During the term of his Presidency, people were lucky to see a newspaper once a week (once a month in many areas) and news took weeks to travel from point to point. The vast majority of people would never do any more "speech" than to write a letter to a relative in another part of the country to tell them about the church social and the spring crops.

I would assume then that the right to bear arms is totally outdated because long bore rifles and peacemakers have no place in modern defense. Though it made sense at the time, it has little relevance today.

The miracle of free speech should always be limited by it's harm to others. In Canada, we don't put up with Holocaust deniers, consider the case of Ernst Zundle... you can always donate to the cause of his lack of free speech on his website http://www.zundelsite.org/zundel_per...is_zundel.html - Should he have the right to free speech, to teach what is clearly a lie, only because he has MUST have that right? Would you approve of him as a history teacher for your family school? After all, he has the right, no?

Now I would agree that you have no protected right to yell fire in a crowded theatre, but Zundel? I also wouldn't approve of a history teacher that believed Kennedy was shot by a lone gunman or anyone who ever taught the domino theory in South East Asia. Zundel should be allowed to howl at the moon as long and loud as he likes. Many would say pornography crosses the line and does more harm than good buddy Ernst.