"Adam H." <adam@mailinator.com> wrote in message
news:9076r1tpo5ndr0bsvmf2hdahi8virgqrdq@4ax.com...

On Wed, 28 Dec 2005 18:06:05 -0500, "Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com>
wrote:

"martin" <usenet@etiqa.co.uk> wrote in message
news:43b30408$0$29560$da0feed9@news.zen.co.uk...

Johnny wrote:

"Carl Kaufmann" <ckaufmann@cox.net> wrote in message
news:bB4sf.44056$oG.37281@dukeread02...

Once inside a clinic, free-speach rights don't apply.

Where did you read that in the Constitution?

Free speech is restriction on congress, not on private organizations.

Free Speech is not a restriction.
The entire USA is subject to the Constitution.

There is no protection on speech against a property-owner's wishes.
You do NOT have any right to speak on private property. The owner can
let you, and he/she can stop you.

Please inform me of the method used to restrict speech.

The only way I know to stop someone from saying what they want to say is to
remove them from your presence so you do not hear what they say if you do
not want to hear it, but they can still speak even then, or to ask or tell
them not to say the things you do not want to hear them saying.
Even then, it is possible that they will not comply with your request or
order.
So, tell me the legal method to have someone removed from a premises who is
doing nothing more than exercising their right to free speech.

There is no protection on speech against a property-owner's wishes.
You do NOT have any right to speak on private property. The owner can
let you, and he/she can stop you.

Please inform me of the method used to restrict speech.
The only way I know to stop someone from saying what they want to say is to
remove them from your presence so you do not hear what they say if you do
not want to hear it, but they can still speak even then, or to ask or tell
them not to say the things you do not want to hear them saying.
Even then, it is possible that they will not comply with your request or
order.
So, tell me the legal method to have someone removed from a premises who is
doing nothing more than exercising their right to free speech.

"Adam H." <adam@mailinator.com> wrote in message
news:9076r1tpo5ndr0bsvmf2hdahi8virgqrdq@4ax.com...

On Wed, 28 Dec 2005 18:06:05 -0500, "Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com>
wrote:

"martin" <usenet@etiqa.co.uk> wrote in message
news:43b30408$0$29560$da0feed9@news.zen.co.uk...

Johnny wrote:

"Carl Kaufmann" <ckaufmann@cox.net> wrote in message
news:bB4sf.44056$oG.37281@dukeread02...

Once inside a clinic, free-speach rights don't apply.

Where did you read that in the Constitution?

Free speech is restriction on congress, not on private organizations.

Free Speech is not a restriction.
The entire USA is subject to the Constitution.

There is no protection on speech against a property-owner's wishes.
You do NOT have any right to speak on private property. The owner can
let you, and he/she can stop you.

Please inform me of the method used to restrict speech.

The only way I know to stop someone from saying what they want to say is to
remove them from your presence so you do not hear what they say if you do
not want to hear it, but they can still speak even then, or to ask or tell
them not to say the things you do not want to hear them saying.
Even then, it is possible that they will not comply with your request or
order.
So, tell me the legal method to have someone removed from a premises who is
doing nothing more than exercising their right to free speech.

"Adam H." <adam@mailinator.com> wrote in message
news:5v34r1dm2qkl1hr6oob79uknj1vr2d690v@4ax.com...

On Tue, 27 Dec 2005 21:56:24 -0500, "Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com>
wrote:

"Adam H." <adam@mailinator.com> wrote in message
news:ams2r1ptibt37iq670hpe3dj6ujf3s45ho@fe06.highwinds-media.phx...

On Tue, 27 Dec 2005 09:41:16 -0500, "Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com>
wrote:

"Carl Kaufmann" <ckaufmann@cox.net> wrote in message
news:bB4sf.44056$oG.37281@dukeread02...

J Young wrote:

Shouldn't the ACLU be fighting tooth and nail to protect the First
Amendment
rights of the pro-life advocates; especially when one considers that
a
life
is at stake?




Boston, MA (LifeNews.com) -- Abortion advocates in Massachusetts want
to
expand the size of buffer zones in place around abortion centers
there.
State law already mandates 6 foot buffer zones around those entering
the
abortion facility in an 18 foot radius around the abortion business.
They
prohibit anyone distributing handouts from giving the information to
people
entering the abortion center without their consent. All that isn't
enough
for abortion advocates, who now want to expand the buffer zone to 35
feet
around the abortion center. Melissa Kogut, executive director of
NARAL's
Massachusetts affiliate, claims the current la it too hard to
enforce.
She
adds that, because its a moving zone that pro-life protesters can
follow
those entering an abortion facility and continue to talk to them as
they
enter. Sen. Jarrett Barrios is sponsoring the bill on behalf of
Planned
Parenthood, according to an AP report. Massachusetts Citizens for
Life
took
the current law to court and the U.S. Supreme Court in April declined
to
hear a case on it.

Once inside a clinic, free-speach rights don't apply.

Where did you read that in the Constitution?

Does the First apply in your house?

You think I can not say what I want to say in my home?

Just as the clinic owners can stop people from saying anything in
their clinics, no?

Censoring speech and free speech are different issues.

There are no free-speech rights in the clinic

Wrong.
Read the First Amendment.

except those that the owners grant.

*****. You are saying that people have a right to censor others.

"Adam H." <adam@mailinator.com> wrote in message
news:5v34r1dm2qkl1hr6oob79uknj1vr2d690v@4ax.com...

On Tue, 27 Dec 2005 21:56:24 -0500, "Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com>
wrote:

"Adam H." <adam@mailinator.com> wrote in message
news:ams2r1ptibt37iq670hpe3dj6ujf3s45ho@fe06.highwinds-media.phx...

On Tue, 27 Dec 2005 09:41:16 -0500, "Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com>
wrote:

"Carl Kaufmann" <ckaufmann@cox.net> wrote in message
news:bB4sf.44056$oG.37281@dukeread02...

J Young wrote:

Shouldn't the ACLU be fighting tooth and nail to protect the First
Amendment
rights of the pro-life advocates; especially when one considers that
a
life
is at stake?




Boston, MA (LifeNews.com) -- Abortion advocates in Massachusetts want
to
expand the size of buffer zones in place around abortion centers
there.
State law already mandates 6 foot buffer zones around those entering
the
abortion facility in an 18 foot radius around the abortion business.
They
prohibit anyone distributing handouts from giving the information to
people
entering the abortion center without their consent. All that isn't
enough
for abortion advocates, who now want to expand the buffer zone to 35
feet
around the abortion center. Melissa Kogut, executive director of
NARAL's
Massachusetts affiliate, claims the current la it too hard to
enforce.
She
adds that, because its a moving zone that pro-life protesters can
follow
those entering an abortion facility and continue to talk to them as
they
enter. Sen. Jarrett Barrios is sponsoring the bill on behalf of
Planned
Parenthood, according to an AP report. Massachusetts Citizens for
Life
took
the current law to court and the U.S. Supreme Court in April declined
to
hear a case on it.

Once inside a clinic, free-speach rights don't apply.

Where did you read that in the Constitution?

Does the First apply in your house?

You think I can not say what I want to say in my home?

Just as the clinic owners can stop people from saying anything in
their clinics, no?

Censoring speech and free speech are different issues.

There are no free-speech rights in the clinic

Wrong.
Read the First Amendment.

except those that the owners grant.

*****. You are saying that people have a right to censor others.

No?

Did I say no?

Read the Constitution.

I did.

It's quite obvious that while you may have done so, you have failed to
understand it.

Not so.

Private property you know. As for outside, show how the expanded
limits
place undue burden.

Well, will you show that or not?

Limits on speech?
Are you referring to limits on the people's right to free speech which are
dictated by the ACLU or some gay lobby?

Will you show the undue burden placed by expanded limits or not?

Expanded limits are a breach of liberty of some persons.
If persons are practicing free speech on public property planned parenthood
has no right to censor those persons with a buffer zone.