Free speech - ok for you but not for me

Legal Analyst Mercedes Colwin Doesn’t think Mohammed cartoons are protected by the First Amendment. She said that because the cartoons “actively incite violence” the University was responsible for the attack since they allowed the cartoons to be printed. The NYT had pictures of 'abuse' at Abu Graib on their front page for three months specifically because it was inciting violence. I'm offended to the point of wanting to hurt somebody every day when I go into work and look at some of the nonsense taped to office doors. If we restrict speech to only that which can not incite violence, we wouldn't be able to say very much at all.

And on a separate but related issue:

This is simply too beneficial for the Democrats for it to be coincidence - there could very well be collusion, and that would make what the AP did a de-facto campaign contribution to the Democratic Party. I believe that such a donation - which would have to be figured as a value of tens of millions of dollars - would be illegal under our campaign finance laws.

We should have a full hearing in Congress, with the AP and the DNC forced to turn over all documents

I don't like the new campaign finance laws since they label my free expression as political speech which is banned 60 days before an election, but if they are going to enforce these idiotic laws, they need to enforce them for the AP, too.