From: mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin)
Subject: Re: Hate Speech Okay, says the Supreme Court
Originator: mnemonic@eff.org
Organization: Electronic Frontier Foundation
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 15:06:46 GMT

In article <1992Jul27.142810.18527@Princeton.EDU> egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Ed Nilges) writes:

>Godwin has hit upon an important point.  I interpreted his intemperate
>entry into this thread (in which he flamed my literacy for using CLS as
>a singular) and his subsequent support for William December Starr (who's
>"had it with me", not with my views note...with me) as a threat display.

I admit to intemperance. I deny that intemperance is a threat. I can't
think of how I might meaningfully threaten Ed Nilges, nor have I any
desire to.

>But this does not mean that anything can be transformed at will into
>anything else.

I don't know about that--you seem to be intent on doing just this.

>Mike, the critical difference between us is that I take my anger (at you
>for wasting my time, at pompous racists like Posner for perpetuating a
>rotten system) as a given, whereas you appear to want to dress you anger
>up in the robes of Science and Reason.  

I don't think anyone interpreted my expressed anger here as an attempt to
be Science or Reason. I think everyone interpreted it simply as expressed
anger.

>You didn't.  Reread the paragraph.  I realize you're a self-proclaimed
>expert at parsing, so it should be clear that your "fashion" , not
>necessarily your behavior, tends toward the Starr end of the spectrum.

It's hard to imagine a spectrum that William Starr is an "end" of.
Thanks for admitting that I said nothing about putting you in my
killfile.

>You have restricted your posts to uninformative, unenlightening grammar
>flames ....

Actually, I've posted about many other issues, and I do so every day. Your
claim here is empirically falsifiable, as you well know. Whether they are
uninformative or unenlightening is for others to judge. Considering that
you term those you disagree with "functionally illiterate," it seems
ironic that you chastise me for responding to this usage by commenting on
your own.

Incidentally, I never commented on your grammar. Grammar is not the same
thing as usage.

> ... announcements re
>my character, and snide insinuations to the effect that Nilges cannot
>speak concerning law school if he's not attended law school.

I think your character speaks for itself. As for law school, you can speak
of it all you like, and I enthusiastically support your right to do so, to
the point of being willing to do so in court. But, of course, I can't
approve of the practice of generalizing on the basis of the scant data
on law schools you apparently have. Please note: I do not think one has to
have attended law school to speak knowledgeably about it. I do think one 
has to have knowledge to speak knowledgeably about it. I haven't seen such
knowledge in your postings.

>Your behavior does give strong reasons why you would find the punk
>Viktora superior-to and more worthy of the SC's time than Karen
>Silkwood, for you cannot see the difference between "hate speech" that
>dresses anger up in the clothes of science and reason, and dialogue.

Last I checked, Gerry Spence didn't seek SC review of the Silkwood case
on Constitutional freedom-of-speech issues. Perhaps he lacked your
insight.

>Be
>advised that the era of negative campaigning is over (can you say
>"Clinton/Gore?")

I doubt the era of negative campaigning is over. I hope very much
that Clinton and Gore are elected.


--Mike




-- 
Mike Godwin,     |"Crime is contagious. If the Government becomes a law-
mnemonic@eff.org | breaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every
(617) 864-0665   | man to become a law unto himself. It invites anarchy."
EFF, Cambridge   |         --Brandeis, J., dissenting in Olmstead v. U.S.