Brojos, whats your point?

shut up

Koech wrote:

an apology to her for violating her right to free speech

K

Koech wrote:

Get a life and think about an apology to her for violating her right to free speech and expression and downplaying her accomplishments.K

Violating her right to free speech? Just because someone says something doesn't mean we have to agree with it. We in know way violated her right to free speech.

And besides we're a private website and she's in Britain, so right to free speech wouldn't even apply here.

All we're saying if she's bitching about the place she lives, says it sucks, and her husband (the reason she is in the country to begin with0) is in jail for drugs maybe she should move somewhere else.

Wejo and Rojo, I'm sorry to report this to you, but quoting someone is a violation of their first amendment rights. If you don't want the ACLU on your ass, DON'T QUOTE ANYONE!

typical republican... thinks the whole world plays by the US's rules.

Au contrare, my French-loving friend. Your liberal buddy said something about a British woman getting her freedom of speech rights infringed. That doesn't make any sense. She's British!

You stupid, stupid people.

Maybe she takes her marriage vows seriously enough to want to be as close to her husband as she can. It doesnt mean she likes where shes living, and she has every right to express that.

What bothers me is how you trivialise her achievments and overplay her husbands jailing.

And as far as violating anyones freedom of expression, you have done your share of censorship on this site, when it suits you.

K

your downplaying the achievments of this web site and are violating their right to free speech, why dont you get a life and realize they have the right to make the comments.

also how long has she been living in England? cause it will take her at least 3 years to gain citizenship, even if she is married.

also a drug is a drug i think the iaaf should look into her intensly to see if she has any part in this.

You moron, my entire point in this debate has been to show you the unfairness with which they have treated her.

I couldnt care less how she feels about that crappy grey island, but if this is a website devoted to track, then lets remain positive about peoples acomplishments.

And no, all drugs are not the same..I dont think heroin would make a champ out of anyone.

read the stories

she's getting a divorce

she was basically frauded into marrying this guy - he passed himself off as a TV producer or something. hey, nobody said she's smart, but she ain't no druggie

she's kind of stuck, though - she can't get British citizenship until 2006 if she divorces the dude

a mess

ok so your saying if an athlete was caught using a drug that wasnt known to be benificial then its alright?

oh and moron my point was to show the hypocricy in your post. i feel i accomplished my objective farily

Did you pass government class in high school (not to mention college)? You're an idiot, if you can't quote someone then every newspaper in America is out of business. Come on man, the first amendment says you can quote someone, even make some things up along the way if you want too (though will pay for it later).

Confusion abounds. No wonder our nation teeters on the verge of a corporate theocracy.

Let's get technical. The first amendment says nothing about the internet. Case law has extended (somewhat) the right to a free press to such things as the letsrun frontpage. The brojos have the legal right to write want they want there, whether you like it or not, whether it is fair or not. However, there is also a long history of libel law as well. Should they libel a person then they can be sued in civil court. In laymen's terms, libel is when you allege something about something which is untrue. To quote someone fairly and then to call that person a crybaby isn't probably libel. It may be infantile and uncouth but it probably falls on the correct side of the line between opinion and libel.

As for the message board. It's not covered by freedom of the press. It might come under the right to _peaceable_ assembly, also in the first amendment, but I'm not aware if this has been tested in the courts yet. Anyone know? Depends, I suppose, on your definition of peaceable.

In sum, crassness and sloppiness are not infringements of the first amendment. Unless of course, the sloppiness includes making hurtful stuff up because one is too lazy to get the facts. Then it might be libel.