From: sethb@fid.morgan.com (Seth Breidbart)
Subject: Re: Legal criticism (was: Re: Hate Speech Okay, says the Supreme Court
Keywords: egnilges
Organization: my opinions only
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1992 01:15:41 GMT

In article <1992Jul28.141517.2176@Princeton.EDU>
egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Ed Nilges) writes:
>In article <1992Jul27.233740.26081@fid.morgan.com> sethb@fid.morgan.com (Seth Breidbart) writes:

>No, what history showed was that white European men decided that they
>were hot stuff and designated by God to lord it over other peoples.

History shows that any group of people who had the power to do so
"decided that they were hot stuff and designated by God to lord it
over other peoples".

>>I didn't say "do nothing".  I said "don't base what you do on race".
>
>But redress of racial injustice must logically be based on race.

Redress of past injustice must be to those individuals who were
unjustly treated.  Giving benefits to others who were not victims, but
who share some unimportant characteristics of some who were victims,
is wrong.

>>>(For the last time)
>>
>>I hope.
>
>You wish.

You lied.


>However, she [Hill] was persecuted and called a "lunatic" in a campaign which
>can yet destroy her career

You said that Hill was criticized, but Thomas and Posner weren't.  I
said that there was more criticism of Thomas than of Hill (based only
on the sample I saw).  Now you're claiming that the criticism of Hill
"can yet..."; in other words, it hasn't done her any harm, but you
want people to believe otherwise.

>Because there was (in a binary sense) no law saying "yo, Anita Hill
>cannot appear to present her facts", discussants using the digital model
>conclude that Anita Hill has absolute freedom of speech.  Whereas
>(using an analog model) I interpret the very high pressure exerted
>against Hill, up to and including the charges of lunacy, as
>unConstitutional and anti-free-speech; in the "red zone" of an analog
>dial, if you please, on my "Constitution engine" that indicates
>precisely (or, being an ANALOG device, imprecisely but with finer
>gradations than any digital device) how much freedom we have in our
>society.

I see.  Criticizing certain people is anti-free-speech.  Sorry, I
believe that everybody has the right to speak (and nobody has the
obligation to listen) and everybody (else) has the right to criticize.

>  For if the digital model
>applies, I still pay all sorts of penalties for the exercise of free
>speech without any legal recourse.  The formal freedom closes off any
>further recourse for Hill and others.

"Freedom means having to put up with a lot of shit that pisses you off."

>No, friends of free speech know that it's part of action, that it has
>consequences (can hurt) and that it much nonetheless be fostered.  By
>dialog.  

It must be fostered.  I'll defend your right to speak.  I'll also
defend other people's rights not to listen.

>>Everybody is subject to character assassination.  It's called freedom
>>of speech.

>Character assassination==freedom of speech?  I'm glad you young fellows
>think so.  Pray, when does the situation escalate into real
>assassination?  I need to get my passport upgraded.

Character assassination is part of free speech.  One of the things I
can use my freedom of speech for is to assassinate the characters of
those who I feel deserve it.

Your comparison of character assassination with real assassination
rates 1 Gilley.

>>In our society, abusive speech is permitted to everybody and therefore
>>can be applied to anybody.  I've seen large amounts of abusive speech
>>about Thomas and Hill; probably more about Thomas.
>
>But if it was TRUE that Thomas said what he said, which was what Hill
>CLAIMED, then this was not "abusive speech."  Truth is an absolute
>defense against even metaphorical charges of libel, and telling the
>truth about abuse on the job is not in itself abuse.  Or are we to
>devise a concept of "reverse abuse", akin to "reverse racism", in which
>the abusing parent, say, can scream "parent abuse!" when a child makes
>the charge of "child abuse?"  Is formalism to go this far?

I didn't say Hill's speech was abusive.  You have posted things about
Thomas that I consider abusive.  And the truth can be abusive; need I
give examples?

Seth		sethb@fid.morgan.com
Newsgroups: misc.legal