And you are here why?

In the wake of the Mozilla-Eich craziness , it is really worth re-examining what exactly we mean by "Free Speech". I know, its there in the constitution 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. Crystal clear, innit? To absolutely no-ones surprise, this has meant a lot  of things over the years, including  You can say  anything you want, and we can throw your ass in jail for saying it  (i.e., no, "thought crimes". This surprising viewpoint held for till 1801) You can go to jail for saying that you oppose a war - even on the campaign trail   (yup. in 1919 no less! Debs. vs. U.S. ) " Free Speech "  doesn't apply to the states!  (till 1940! Cantwell vs. U.S . ) And the list goes on. For a complete history, read...

via greginak in the comments “If you think the difference between freedom and tyranny is free countries provide health insurance or direct health care for children of poor families, disabled people, politically powerful groups with cancer, Vets, and those over 65 and tyrannies extend those basic overages to everybody then you have lost all perspective.”   I can't imagine this being said better, thought this does get close “If you believe the difference between God-given freedom and evil, despotic tyranny lies somewhere between a 35% and a 37% marginal tax rate, you’ve lost all perspective.”

From the great state of Louisiana, we have a heart-warming story of religious tolerance.  For those of you who don't know, Governor Bobby Jindal (who probably has the world record for the shortest time in the Presidential Candidate limelight after his EPIC FIAL of a State of the Union response in 2009 ) signed a school voucher bill allowing parents to send kids to private schools at public expense , regardless of the type of school, i.e., religious, etc. Sounds great right? Especially the bit about public money paying for sending kids to religious schools? (work w/ me here). Well, turns out that Rep. Valarie Hodges (R-Watson) is having second thoughts . Turned out that when she voted for the bill, she had mistakenly assumed that religious meant Christian :-( According to her 'I liked the idea of giving parents the option of sending their children to a public school or a Christian school,'  'Unfortunately it will not be limited to the Founders’ religion.  ...