From: sethb@fid.morgan.com (Seth Breidbart)
Subject: Re: Hate speech okay, Supreme Court says
Keywords: aieeee
Organization: my opinions only
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 22:42:50 GMT

In article <1992Jul17.152504.14930@Princeton.EDU>
egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Ed Nilges) writes:
>In article <1992Jul16.232508.9821@fid.morgan.com> sethb@fid.morgan.com (Seth Breidbart) writes:
>>In article <1992Jul16.021218.25904@Princeton.EDU> egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Ed Nilges) writes:
>>express any message to exactly the same degree that you have the right
>>to express any other message.  You cannot bother me in my apartment at
>>midnight, independent of your message.  You can stand on a
>>streetcorner and shout what you want, independent of your message.
>
>No, my message is such that it involves waking you up, just as the Klan
>can not content itself with desk top publishing its message of racial
>hatred.  Where's my freedom of speech in this hypothetical situation?

You cannot express your message by waking me up.  You can express it
by posting it on USENET, or buying an ad in the NY Times, or...

>>
>>>     *  The Nisei whose homes were destroyed without a peep from us in 
>>>        WWII
>>
>>Their homes were destroyed.  Some of them are still (rightfully)
>>complaining about it.  I say that they have freedom of speech.
>
>They had no freedom of speech during the time they were in camps.

Evidence, please?

>>>     *  The Kent State students
>>
>>Especially the ROTC member.
>
>Trying to sneak in another big lie/urban legend?  

I think I'll post that to afu and see what they say.  I'm too lazy to
look up the newspaper articles I read at the time.

>No, your saying that the present group of people who set the parameters
>of free speech must be allowed to continue to do so.  What bugs you
>about the bias crime law is the thought that it is of no benefit to you.

That law is bad, and is of no benefit to anybody.

If it were of benefit, then I'd point out that I am a member of
several groups that have been discriminated against, and you would
probably consider me to be a "beneficiary" of that law.

>Viktora's victims were forced to move by his little stunt, now protected
>"speech."

His little stunt is NOT protected speech; he's still under indictment
for it (assault? trespass? I forgot which charge is still
outstanding).  All that happened is that one bad law was overturned;
that law was unnecessary, as you can see, since he's still under
indictment.

>It's easy to kick back and say, well, if we outlaw cross burnings we
>must outlaw flag burnings.  It's much harder to say, cross burning has
>an unavoidable historical meaning as a prelude to a battery, whereas
>flag burning has never been a prelude to a battery.  But the latter
>statement is TRUE.

Flag burning may never have been prelude to a battery.  So we
shouldn't outlaw it.  Cross burning has sometimes (but not always)
been a prelude to a battery.  So we shouldn't outlaw that, either.
Running has sometimes (but not always) been a prelude to a battery.
Where should we draw the line?

Seth		sethb@fid.morgan.com
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,alt.censorship,talk.politics.misc,alt.folklore.urban,misc.legal