From: paul@hsh.com
Newsgroups: alt.news-media
Subject: Re: Media Bias? YOU Decide. Resumes Tell All
Date: 9 Nov 92 21:53:10 GMT
 <7NOV199214152277@ctrvx1.vanderbilt.edu> <1992Nov7.185721.1@acad.drake.edu> <1dm1rbINNc5d@armory.centerline.com>
Organization: HSH Associates

In article <1dm1rbINNc5d@armory.centerline.com>, thomaso@centerline.com (Thomas Andrews) writes:
> In article <1992Nov7.185721.1@acad.drake.edu> vsg001@acad.drake.edu writes:
>>
>>By this, are you asserting that an extremist group of ideas are threatening to
>>the Constitution? To assume the ACLU (read liberal) point of view, doesn't the
>>Constitution explictly PROTECT these "radical" groups and ideas? Wouldn't the
>>Constitution seem to embrace these groups as well, regardless of what effect
>>they may have on the Constitution, since it exists so that these groups may be
>>preserved?
>>Now, hold on before I am branded as a religious right fool, I must state that I
>>too reject the extreme right, but on the other hand, I reject ALL extreme
>>views. I only find a flaw in the logic that a liberal, who would supposedly
>>embrace all views  (only Conservatives are close minded) would claim that an
>>extreme group would harm the Constitution, since, it is to the liberal
>>philosophy that the Constitution accepts all views.
> 
> This is bizarre logic.  Maybe I'm misunderstanding it.
> 	1) The Constitution grants people the right to express
> 	their opinions.
> 	2) Therefore no opinion can be a threat to the
> 	Constitution.
> 
> So if I start a party calling for the burning of all copies of the
> US Constitution and the declaration of a monarchy, and my party
> gained a large following, it would be inaccurate to call my opinions
> a threat to the Constitution?
> 
> This is somewhat of a logical leap for me.
> The Constitution does not "accept" or "embrace" all views.  It simply
> insists that there is no legal method to suppress them with government
> intervention.
> 
> The Constitution is an "inert" object; the freedoms it specifies can only
> be defended if *we* defend them.  As such, when we see a threat to those
> freedoms, we should call it a threat, and react accordingly, not by
> suppressing a point of view, but by discussing what that point of view
> would mean to society.

What's the problem?  Either you accept it for ALL groups, or for NONE.  The
ACLU defended the right of the Nazi Party to march in Skokie, Illinois; the
Nazis are/were not known for *their* embrace of the American way of life. 
The Communist Party of the USA has their candidate on the ballot, every
election, and Communists do not hold the Constitution near & dear.  Is
defending the rights of these groups a "logical leap" -- or a tenet of our
society? 

Free speech is protected, whether we agree with the idea or not.  *Acting* 
on a particular idea... now, that's another story.  You can openly be a 
member of the Communist Party -- but you'll go to jail if you attempt to 
violently overthrow the US government.

------

 Paul Havemann, VP          HSH Associates            (201) 838-3330 
 Internet: paul@hsh.com     Compuserve: 70410,3507    AOL: HSH Assoc
 "Any opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the company."
Newsgroups: alt.news-media