740
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 27:
Line 27: + + + +
Talk:Sedition Act of 1918 (view source)
Revision as of 23:16, November 16, 2009
, 23:16, November 16, 2009→Are they good things?: Reply w- cite to User:Ashlafly
::::::Yes, they would need to speak the truth against it, not propagate unsubstantiated lies. [[User:MichaelZ|MichaelZ]] 12:51, 14 November 2009 (EST)
::::::Yes, they would need to speak the truth against it, not propagate unsubstantiated lies. [[User:MichaelZ|MichaelZ]] 12:51, 14 November 2009 (EST)
(unindent) Agreed, Lyons (and just about everyone back then) spoke with much less politeness than we should. But, they had points. If I remember correctly, they cited evidence. You might disagree - but judges ''have'' disagreed with our evidence as well; every case about Obama's birth certificate has been dismissed. (You might say they were "bought off", but that would just strengthen my point.) We need absolute, unfettered freedom to be "writing... with intent to defame the said government... or to bring them, or either of them, into contempt or disrepute; or to excite against them, or either or any of them, the hatred of the good people of the United States."
And on another argument: [[User:Aschlafly|at least one conservative besides me]] [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Main_Page&curid=87913&diff=720969&oldid=720966 believes] in giving free speech to everyone whatsoever. I'd like this page to be unlocked; if so, I promise not to insert uncited opinions. --[[User:EvanW|EvanW]] 18:16, 16 November 2009 (EST)