In a message dated 9/4/99 2:49:39 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
[log in to unmask] writes:
 
<<  In an earlier posting it was suggested that EP was
 excercising his rights udner the US Constitution, which seems to me an
 indefensible premise. When you go over to the other side during a war,
 you would seem to forfeit some constitutional protections. >>
 
 
it's common knowledge that if Pound had made his broadcasts within the US,
his speech would have been protected -- leaving some to believe that his
rights should have been protected in any event.  this, sadly, was not the
case, as the US government believed, apparently along with mainstream Bill,
that he had no "constitutional rights."  I may be wrong about this, but as
far as I know, Pound didn't "go over to the other side" in that he never took
up arms against his country, nor advocated that others  do it.  I believe in
the exercise of free speech, even if it's unpopular or even hateful, and even
in times of war.
 
jb.....