Re: Outlawing drug speech - EEK!

From: Ross A. Finlayson (raf@tiki-lounge.com)
Date: Tue Feb 01 2000 - 12:12:03 MST

Next message: Spudboy100@aol.com: "Re: Solar power [was Nano-Rectennas]"
Previous message: Anders Sandberg: "Re: post-renaissance terminology"
In reply to: Ross A. Finlayson: "Re: Outlawing drug speech - EEK!"
Next in thread: Ian Goddard: "Re: Outlawing drug speech - EEK!"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

Ross A. Finlayson wrote:

I find error in my post.

> To claim that the
> discussed bill provision (not necessarily the rest of the bill) does not
> violate the First Amendment is blatantly unconstitutional...

^
|_ oops, I mean "To claim that the discussed bill provision is constitutional is
wrong."

Next message: Spudboy100@aol.com: "Re: Solar power [was Nano-Rectennas]"
Previous message: Anders Sandberg: "Re: post-renaissance terminology"
In reply to: Ross A. Finlayson: "Re: Outlawing drug speech - EEK!"
Next in thread: Ian Goddard: "Re: Outlawing drug speech - EEK!"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:26:34 MST