I agree with you on your assessment: no regard for actual human nature.

Personally, I think they’re larval republicans still holding onto unrealistic ideals.

Sweet kids.

If some one wants to believe that I’m inferior because I’m not white, that’s their perogative. But tell me I can’t do a job because of it, and I will tear that building down brick by brick.

If Rupert Murdoch wants to have a news channel to promote his ideals, who am I to tell him what to do with this toys? But if he wants to squeeze out every other channel or buy them out to create a monopoly on information, then we need to protect our rights through legislation.

And FINALLY, if some jackasses want to smear someone through altered pictures that she herself put out in public, and speak ignorant thoughts that for the most part were incoherent babble that seemed filtered through the mind of a mentally handicapped twelve year old, LET THEM. If they break into your house, shoot them in the leg and call the cops.

And I agree with why the owner of meankids took down the site. It was his choice. Gideon said it best: the key is responsibility. For our own selves and our own actions.

And I disagree about your idea of ‘celebrity.’ If even only ten people, spread across the globe, are reading what you write, comment on your thoughts, and you have no idea who they are, that’s international notariety. That’s a minor celebrity.

My father told me once “If you don’t want someone to find you, don’t tell them where you are.”

Thanks for the reply, and I apologize if my response didn’t answer your question as directly as you’d hoped. Here’s the short answer, in my opinion: the line has been drawn by the courts and I think it’s at a pretty good place.

I think the key is responsibility.

As I said to Liz, I am cognizant that by even asking the question I’m challenging the free speech limits. Really, I’m hoping that by asking the question we might have this kind of discussion to arrive at what would be considered ‘the line’.