>Mike you are missing the fundamental point which is this: if you state that all men are equal in the eyes of the law then it is the law that needs to protect all men.

Or no men.

>If you then say that one needs to protect our rights and our ability to do so depends on each persons resources and skills then clearly we are not all equal in the eyes of the law.

The law will protect those who can argue that their rights have been violated.

If a man cannot argue this, how will the law know? Do we assume the law is psycic or omnicient? Of course not.

My thesis is that a man must understand his rights and want to defend them in order to receive protection or justice from government. In this sense all men are created equal.

Whether or not all men can understand and defend at equal levels is another matter, and of course, there is inequality in this matter.

But that matter is quite removed from the original discussion. What we were talking about was whether an elected official's reputation is somehow so important that the free speech of more common people may be violated to protect the official.

I think we would both agree that both men are equal in the eyes of the law.

>If you stick by these words then what you are saying has nothing to do with equality but rather with how well we are able to play the game. This is a finite game - winners and losers. So much for compassion and the higher thoughts of man.

The alternative that you described above is we expect god-like qualities from the courts and legislator. I find this alternative unrealistic.

>>>Secondly, the law itself is controlled by the people in power...
>>
>>And the people in power are controlled by the people who vote.
>
>Really?

Yes, really. Often in America the people who vote do not excersize the power they have. This is again another situation where recognizing the game theory between competeing strategies may be insightful.