User talk:Freedomforever1987

Thank you for taking your time to read this. It was March 1, 2010 and I decided to go to the Recreation Center of 101 Stadium Dr. Navasota, TX 77868 the phone number is (936) 825-2241. I went there to check my email, myspace, facebook and get on craiglist. So I went in and ask can I use the computer the lady behind the desk and she say yes. Then I ask do I have to sign something she said no and then I went to the computer room. Everything was going great I was checking my email, myspace, and facebook. Then I went to craiglist.org so I can go to Rants & Raves and chat about my opinion and ideals and used my first first amendment to just express my opinion. When I went to craiglist.org it say contact your administrator, so i talk to the lady and I stated I am 22 I have all legal rights and using my first amendment rights to share my ideals and opinion. Then she look shock like I new my rights so she talk to someone in the backroom. She came back out and said you can’t get on that website you can go to the public library. First of all it doesnt open to 3:30 pm on Monday to 6:30. The Recreation center is a public funded goverment place where every body is intitled to go and used there voice to voice the opinion on anything they want and the ACLU took legal action aginst the Reno and won. The case Reno v ACLU is right under this paragraph. What the goverment did yesterday March 1, 2101 is unfair and against the Constitution and I have proof. The constitution can't defend it self and our Goverment was founded on questioning our Goverment. You should never take Liberty for for granted GOD BLESS AMERICA.

Reno v ACLU: A Momentous Decision Our vision of an uncensored Internet was clearly shared by the U.S. Supreme Court when it struck down the 1996 Communications Decency Act (CDA), a federal law that outlawed "indecent" communications online. Ruling unanimously in Reno v. ACLU, the Court declared the Internet to be a free speech zone, deserving of at least as much First Amendment protection as that afforded to books, newspapers and magazines. The government, the Court said, can no more restrict a person's access to words or images on the Internet than it could be allowed to snatch a book out of a reader's hands in the library, or cover over a statue of a nude in a museum. The nine Justices were clearly persuaded by the unique nature of the medium itself, citing with approval the lower federal court's conclusion that the Internet is "the most participatory form of mass speech yet developed," entitled to "the highest protection from governmental intrusion." The Internet, the Court concluded, is like "a vast library including millions of readily available and indexed publications," the content of which "is as diverse as human thought."

Think hard and long before you commenet to this post and thank you for reading this story. As a famous American once said "Give me liberty or give me death" Patrick Henry, March 23, 1775.

Here is more proof that the Goverment can not tell an adult what to look up in a public goverment funded place that has a computer lab.

January 21, 2009 ACLU Wins 10-Year Legal Battle To Protect Free Speech

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE CONTACT: (212) 549-2666; media@aclu.org

WASHINGTON – In a clear victory for free speech, the Supreme Court has announced that it will not hear the government's appeal of a ban on the Child Online Protection Act (COPA), the federal law that would criminalize constitutionally protected speech on the Internet.

Lower courts have rejected the law as unconstitutional and it has not gone into effect in the 10 years since it was passed. In 2004, the Supreme Court upheld an injunction against the law on the grounds that it violated the First Amendment. The American Civil Liberties Union first challenged COPA on behalf of a broad coalition of writers, artists and health educators who use the Internet to communicate constitutionally protected speech.

The following can be attributed to Chris Hansen, senior staff attorney for the ACLU and lead counsel on the case:

"For over a decade the government has been trying to thwart freedom of speech on the Internet, and for years the courts have been finding the attempts unconstitutional. It is not the role of the government to decide what people can see and do on the Internet. Those are personal decisions that should be made by individuals and their families."

The following can be attributed to Steven R. Shapiro, Legal Director of the ACLU:

"The Court's decision not to review COPA for a third time affirms what we have been saying all along – the government has no right to censor protected speech on the Internet, and it cannot reduce adults to hearing and seeing only speech that the government considers suitable for children."

Attorneys on the case are Hansen, Aden Fine, Ben Wizner and Catherine Crump of the ACLU, Katharine Marshall with the law firm Kobre and Kim LLP, and Christopher Harris and Jeroen van Kwawegen with the law firm Latham and Watkins.