From: mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin)
Subject: Re: Once more into the breach, dear friends (was: Re: Ted babbles again
Originator: mnemonic@eff.org
Organization: Electronic Frontier Foundation
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 1992 22:18:11 GMT

In article <1992Sep13.191730.18583@Princeton.EDU> egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Ed Nilges) writes:

>"Non sequitur" is impressive sounding Latin which means literally "does
>not follow" but in modern-day America means "damned if I can figger out
>the connection here", or in short, "duh."

I was using what you call the literal meaning, but which is also, in
fact, the meaning of "non sequitur" in modern-day America. Look it up.

>Mike, Ted is on record (in the "Hate Speech OK, Supreme Court Says"
>thread) as believing in the absolute primacy of free speech.  "Adolf"
>was exercising his "free speech."  Ergo, the Tedster is committed to
>defending Adolf, even as the Supreme Cort told St Paul that Viktora was
>exercising speech when he trashed a black family's lawn.  

What you leave out of this syllogism is the meaning of the terms you
use. It is apparent that you are confused about the meaning of the
First Amendment, the issues raised by R.A.V., and what "free speech"
means. (You have acknowledged elsewhere that you use the term differently
from the way Ted uses it.)

>I do hope this helps.

I don't think so. My problem with your posting was not that I didn't
understand you, but that you don't understand the issues you are trying to
talk about. I cited a good reference book on First Amendment jurisprudence
(NIMMER ON FREEDOM OF SPEECH), which, if you consulted it, would doubtless
diminish the number of mistakes you make here.

>(2) Usenet was created with taxpayer dollars when it originated in the
>Sixties as Arpanet.

You have confused Usenet with the Internet, which in any case was created
by both public and private money. Papers concerning the history, policies,
and future of the Internet may be acquired by ftp from ftp.eff.org.
Information on Usenet (and its difference from the Internet and the old
Arpanet) can be found in O'Reilly and Associates' USING USENET AND UUCP.

>As such property rights are not absolute within
>Usenet as a whole.

As I pointed out earlier, the limitations on the scope of the First
Amendment are not a function of property rights.

>Even within "private" sites, there is no reason why
>First Amendment rights should not trump property rights.

I agree. But this has nothing to do with the issues raised by R.A.V.

>>R.A.V. concerned a different legal issue: whether it is Constitutional
>>to allow state action that punishes someone for expressing hateful
>>ideas.
>
>Bullshit, fella.  The law enhanced the penalties for pre-existing acts
>that were already illegal.

You seem confused here. I wasn't making any statement at all about what
the law said. I was talking about what the legal issue was. For future
reference, a legal issue is not the same thing as a statute or an
ordinance.


--Mike



-- 
Mike Godwin,    |"The meeting of two personalities is like the contact 
mnemonic@eff.org| of two chemical substances: if there is any reaction, 
(617) 864-0665  | both are transformed."
EFF, Cambridge  |                           --Carl Jung 
Newsgroups: misc.legal