Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!genrad!wjh12!n44a!ima!inmet!nrh
From: nrh@inmet.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Re: More on J. Jackson - (nf)
Message-ID: <716@inmet.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 10-Jan-84 06:03:45 EST
Article-I.D.: inmet.716
Posted: Tue Jan 10 06:03:45 1984
Date-Received: Wed, 11-Jan-84 08:35:55 EST
Lines: 25

#R:houxu:-27200:inmet:7800047:000:901
inmet!nrh    Jan  9 21:21:00 1984

***** inmet:net.politics / houxu!welsch / 10:46 am  Jan  8, 1984
	Lets look at Jackson's ends and means.  The only method or
	means Jackson had available was speech.  What is so awful about
	speech?  Freedom of speech is a first amendment right.  Is Mr.
	Pector suggesting that private U.S. citizens don't have the
	right to speak to foreign leaders.

	There was nothing wrong with Jackson's means. He did not
	violate any law or make any commitments for the U.S.


I believe you are incorrect.  After Jackson's return, there was
speculation in the Cleveland Plain Dealer (a newspaper) that 
Jackson had violated the Logan act, which makes it a crime for 
private citizens to treat with foreign governments.

You are not as free as you think you are.....


P.S.  I'm against the Logan act, but Congress should not be able to 
pass laws like it without the law's BAD effects being noisily pointed
out.