... is a pretty slippery issue, David.

>> But I'd argue that the participants don't have the
>> moral right to tell others what they can and can not say.

Well, it seems to me if you believe this is a "private" free speech issue, then those who disagree with the posting of Gene's Jane Fonda chip have as much right, moral or otherwise, to express their opinions as Gene, you or I do. Obviously, no one has the moral right to "tell others" what they can say, but that isn't really what happened here, because no one here (other than Greg) has any authority to enforce his opinion. You know what they say about opinions, anyway, don't you? What they're like, I mean? <g>

>> Are you sure that the founding fathers didn't view the First Amendment as
>> the most important of those amendments which were adopted after the first two
>> were defeated?

It's certainly possible (in fact, quite likely) that at least some of them DID think the First Amendment was the most important of the ten which were adopted. But, it obviously wasn't placed there for that reason. It was third in the originally proposed Bill of Rights, behind two articles which ultimately were deemed unsuitable for adoption. In short, it was a complete accident that Freedom of Speech happened to end up in the First Amendment (though, of course, it's not the first clause of that amendment).

On the other hand, I personally feel that the ability to speak one's mind without fear of governmental reprisal is the most valuable freedom we have in this country (as you may have noticed, I often exercise this ability <g>).

----- jim o\-S