From: stevens@eatdust (John Stevens)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: Observations
Date: 10 Sep 92 02:51:16 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Not bloodly likely!  I'd never be able to find it!

In article <1992Sep4.004559.15004@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> knapp@spot.Colorado.EDU (David Knapp) writes:
>In article <1992Sep3.154720.26829@advtech.uswest.com> stevens@eatdust (John Stevens) writes:
>>In article <1992Sep1.204604.21764@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> knapp@spot.Colorado.EDU (David Knapp) writes:
>I attempted to make a distinction between personal freedoms to express one's
>self and breathing down people's necks.
>
>If I was escorting my friend into an abortion clinic and some zealot 
>started shouting obscenities at me and her, I'm afraid I'd have to 
>express myself.

With physical violence?!

>I presume you can list similar differences between free speech and being
>an asshole.

No, I can't.  As soon as you attempt to restrict the right of free speech
to cover only inoffensive speech, you've basically eliminated the
right (or should I say, privilege) altogether.

If you have the right to disagree with me, make fun of me or insult
me over the net, that zealot you mention should have the right to
shout obscenities at you and your friend.

If you believe otherwise, you are being self-contradictory in an
extremely ugly fashion, in that you reserve rights to your self
that you do not give to others.

A lot of people have flamed me here, but if somebody attempted to shut
down this news group, or USENET on that basis, I'd scream like a scalded
cat.

>>I have NEVER seen a street preacher harass.  He may exercise his right
>>to free speech in an irritating, insulting or even ridiculous way, but
>>not harass.
>
>Harass:
>
>1) To disturb or irritate persistently.
>2) To wear out: exhaust.
>3) To enervate [an enemy] by repreated raids.

As to the definition given, I'd say that only #1 could possibly be
stretched to cover any street preacher I've ever seen, and that
definition is to ambigous to be valid.

After all, the mere presence of a street preacher can be disturbing or
irritating to many people.

>What do you need to see?

Any proof at all that your assertions are correct.  As an example, I
use Brother Jed (if you don't know who he is, check your available
news groups for his 'fan' club).  He does not 'wear out: exhaust'
anybody, as you are free to walk away at any time.  He does not
repeatedly execute raids, as he does not 'raid' at all.

And finally, whether someone or something irritates you emotionally
is too subjective to be acceptable as a reason to legally define the
speech of another person as harassment.

>I'd say I've seen street preachers do all those, including blowing up 
>clinics.

And I've seen avowed pacifistic pro-female-choicers use protest signs
to beat pro-lifers (engaged in a totally passive sit in) into a bloody
pulp.

>I don't think you're scum, I think you are so wrapped up in an emotional 
>issue that you are focussing only on how things affect you personally.

This is not an emotional issue with me, any more than the equal rights
fight is an emotional issue for the feminists.

>That can happen to anyone and probably happens to everyone at one time or
>another.  Some get over it, others don't.  I can see you do have some 
>venomous attributes common to the religious zealots who are out to save each
>other.

And you show all the deliberate denial of your self contradictions common
to pro-choicers.

>That strikes me as a psychological disorder more than assholism 
>though.

I have very little respect for people who judge the mental health
of others from what they write.  It is usually a judgement passed
with the intent of belittling an opponent because you cannot
defeat their arguements in any other way than to attack them.

>Why don't I pop you in the kisser? If you were shouting your most vile posts
>at me as I walk into a clinic, I probably would.

A VERY dangerous action to take, as you have no idea as to the response
I might give.  It might be anything from stunned disbelief, to reflexive
homicide.

You are a hypocrite.  In the above example, you are engaged in an action
that is much viler to me (infanticide) than my nastiest, vilest posts
could possibly be to you.  And if I initiated an attack on you, you
would scream harassment, assault, facist, etc.

>Posting twisted and rude
>posts is a large part of what the net is about. I'm not going to punch you
>out because you do what a lot of other people do on the net. I can always
>unsubscribe. Carry on. 

If I were you, I would STRONGLY consider asking a professional for advice
about my beliefs in regards to the appropriateness of the use of violence
in response to verbal attack.

I was taught that a verbal attack does NOT constitute a reason for violence
unless the person involved forced you to listen to the attack.

And one counselor even went so far as to say that violence is NEVER an
acceptale response to a verbal attack.

And last, but not least, the most physically dangerous man I every met
was 5' 2" tall, weighed 92 lbs., wore glasses and could kill a human
being with the tip of his finger.

Overcompensation, most likely :-)

>>You your self have been pretty sanctimonious.
>
>I'm not telling you what to do with your body. 

Yes, you are.  You are telling me to stand aside and let my child be
killed.

>>I never expected anything else.  Just be prepared to loose.  After all,
>>you could, you know.
>
>I doubt it. We haven't started playing the game like you guys yet. Maybe
>we should start using your tactics and slanderize you publicly and blow
>up baptist churches?

|-()  (Big laugh!)  What a claim!  The only part that is true, is that
(so far as I know) no pro-abort has been caught attempting to blow up
a church.

>You haven't *seen* action. Not enough pro-choice
>people take you guys seriously (a problem) but when they see you affecting
>the goverment, they'll start moving.

I've *SEEN* action.  And after talking to a lot of people, I believe that
you 'pro-choice' people have NO IDEA what the majority of Americans
want.

>Look what the abortion issue has done to the Republican platform. Keep
>up the good work!

Yup.  It has given the pro-life movement a focus point.  At this rate,
abortion will be limited or made illegal in the next decade or so.

>(I am not a democrat and I'm not party affiliated, but I'm pretty sick of
>the Reagan/Bush trickly up theory of economics and their recent reformation
>of fascism and racism.)

And I'm damn sick of a Democratic Congress that raises taxes to cover the
deficit, then ups its spending rate to EXCEED the EXPECTED revenue increases
brought about by the tax increase.

>David Knapp                                  University of Colorado, Boulder

Vote Linroth for President in 2004!  Remember, you heard it hear first!

John
stevens@uswest.com
Newsgroups: talk.abortion