From: garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin)
Subject: Re: INFO: pro-choice protestors deny freedom of speech
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon
Date: Sat, 17 Oct 1992 00:27:04 GMT

In article <16OCT199209593823@ariel.lerc.nasa.gov> ecaxron@ariel.lerc.nasa.gov (Ron Graham) writes:
#In article <7704@blue.cis.pitt.edu.UUCP>, 
#     sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin) writes...
#
##Graham won't be answering, of course.
#
#It is true I shouldn't, since the probability of Garvin saying anything
#important is small, and the probability of her saying anything supportable
#smaller still.  But the "of course" drew me out.

I just assumed that you were telling the truth when you said
that you didn't read talk.abortion.  My mistake.

##I do wonder where this article was printed.  I'd be surprised
##if it was in the FFL newsletter - they claim to subscribe to
##the "seamless web" philosophy, so they'd look pretty strange
##singing the praises of Bob Casey.
#
#That's "seamless garment."  

I've heard it both ways.  

#And Casey does subscribe to it too, for the
#most part.

Casey signed his fifteenth death warrant last month.  I guess
the "garment" isn't so seamless, huh?

#New York Times, followed by Plain Dealer.  While I am quite certain you
#will once again not do your homework, you may still look it up.  And you
#may be certain that those in authority of FFL are outraged, as I am.

Exucse me?   Homework?  Do you, like Nyikos, assume that readers
are subject to assignments?

I hardly think that you should speak about people not being willing
to look at original sources, Graham.  Did you find any for any
of the claims that you made during your last visit yet?

##I agree with Ron, though.  Why do so many people think that
##the right to free speech guarantees that people listen to you?
#
#And why is it that an audience that came specifically to hear Casey speak,
#and in some cases *to argue with him*, was denied the opportunity?  Doesn't
#the right to free speech exist for *their* benefit as well?  As Mr. Bense
#pointed out, Casey could have spoken elsewhere - the same applies to those
#who protest.  Anyone who doesn't want to listen can leave.  The others came
#because they wanted to listen, and they were also denied Casey'r right to
#speak.

You still don't understand freedom of speech, do you?

Casey could have done what he did at his last inaugaration - had
armed guards at the door and prohibited protesters.  He could
have used a better sound system.  Bob Casey is the one who
decided not to speak.  

#Let's face it, Ms. Garvin, you believe in free speech only for those who
#agree with you.  And you would hold one freedom for ransom to get another.
#Ah well, I have better things to do than to picket mutual admiration societies.
#
Let's face it, Graham, you're a liar.  

I believe in freedom of speech.  You're arguing that people should
have been silenced.  Not coincidentally, you disagree with the
people who you want to silence.  Attempting to assign your
position to me is typical, but not convincing.

During the RNC, a group of young people were sent out as a
"truth squad" to disrupt a speech by a Clinton aide.  Anti-
abortion protesters heckled at most of Clinton's stops on
his bus tours.  The first time that the leaders of NARAL
and NRLC met to discuss common ground, the meeting was
disrupted by anti-abortion protesters.  When Barbara
Hafer, the candidate who opposed Bob Casey two years ago,
spoke at an abortion rights rally here, Pitt Students for
Life attempted to shout her down.  


Do you think that all of these people were wrong, Graham?
I'm sure that you were unaware of the local problem, but
were you honestly not aware of all of these?  

Steve Chaney has announced his intention to disrupt any
ACT UP action.  Will you criticize him for not respecting
freedom of speech, or will you prove your hypocrisy
yet again?

(Graham wants to pretend that he and Chaney aren't allies.
Right.)

Susan