On Sat, 21 Jul 2001, Seth Finkelstein wrote:
> While this is true, there's a very deep issue in the
> definition of "protected".
No there isn't, it's just that '...no law...' is onconvenient for people
who believe they are angels among men:
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech,
or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to
petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
> The problem is better rendered that the courts have taken the view that the
> protection of (intellectual) *property rights* trumps the free-speech
> concerns here.
The problem is that courts believe they can interpret the constitution
instead of as actually worded, being limited to laws made 'under' the
constutition.
A major distinction.
--
____________________________________________________________________
Nature and Nature's laws lay hid in night:
God said, "Let Tesla be", and all was light.
B.A. Behrend
The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate
Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087
-====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'-
--------------------------------------------------------------------
