From: egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Ed Nilges)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Hate Speech Okay, says the Supreme Court
Date: 27 Jul 92 14:28:10 GMT
Organization: Princeton University
Originator: news@ernie.Princeton.EDU

In article <1992Jul26.221125.10119@eff.org> mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin) writes:
>In article <1992Jul26.213024.24427@Princeton.EDU> egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Ed Nilges) writes:
>
>>We see an example of this in this thread.  Mike Godwin is beginning,
>>like William December Starr, to descend to threatening language in
>>preference to either remaining silent on the subject matter of this
>>thread, or engaging discussants in the substance of what the SC said in
>>re Viktora.  This undercuts Godwin and Starr's professed dedication
>>to free speech.
>
>Not only do I not recall having threatened Ed Nilges, but I am clueless
>as to how I might meaningfully threaten Nilges with anything.
>
>I do know that Nilges sent me e-mail that could be interpreted as a threat
>to me--he threatened to give me a lot of trouble next time I fail to
>proofread a posting--but even at my most uncharitable I can't really feel
>threatened by this.

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.
He points out that private email (in which I vigorously but hopefully
non-insultingly addressed some of Mike's points to avoid burdening the
net) can be interpreted as threatening.

Language is malleable.  A good attorney can put a restraining order on
an ex-husband for sending his ex-wife flowers; in a case recently here
in Jersey, this actually happened.  The flowers, after all, were part of
a pattern of behavior that started with lovey-dovey and escalated into
threats owing the the man's defective character.

But this does not mean that anything can be transformed at will into
anything else.  Mike's entire stance has been threatening and he's
managed to offend innocent bystanders like Calvin.  I've attempted to
maintain focus on the issue of the thread, even to the extent of
bringing up Mike's and William's behavior as examples of what I'm
talking about.  

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.  

>
>>Henry, I did not indulge myself in the fashion of Godwin and of Starr in
>>ugly language and a deliberate announcement to the world that one has
>>"killed" Nilges.
>
>In which posting did I announce to the world that I would put you in a
>killfile? Or are you just making this up as you go along?

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.
You have restricted your posts to uninformative, unenlightening grammar
flames (explicitly discouraged by usenet guidelines), announcements re
my character, and snide insinuations to the effect that Nilges cannot
speak concerning law school if he's not attended law school.

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.  Be
advised that the era of negative campaigning is over (can you say
"Clinton/Gore?")
Xref: sparky misc.legal:14909 alt.censorship:6326 talk.politics.misc:36119