From: knapp@spot.Colorado.EDU (David Knapp)
Subject: Re: Observations
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 23:50:09 GMT

In article <1992Sep10.025116.11647@advtech.uswest.com> stevens@eatdust (John Stevens) writes:
>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?!

That depends on whether or not you consider grabbing them by the throat
firmly enough to pop their eyes out 'violent'.  "I TOLD YOU TO GET OUT
OF MY FACE, PAL." I suspect that they would leave me alone after that.
Again, I would not be the one instigating the confrontation; those revellers
chose to harass me.



>>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.

Are you against laws banning public nudity? Vulgar language in public?
They're there and most of us agree that it make sense to draw the line between
public expression and being a dick. That line has been drawn and I would
simply be willing to draw it deeper if pressed at an abortion clinic.


>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.

Do I call you a muderer? When have I made fun of you? Have I shouted
obscenities or even *typed* them to you? I've done none of this but
if I came up to you on the street and did that, I'd rather expect you 
to at least attempt to clean my clock. Since I wouldn't confront you like
that, it's not an issue. I would support your clock cleaning activities 
towards anyone who was that big of a dick to you no matter who they were.

>
>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.

You have this way of forging concepts into either/or situations when they
are not simple enough to merit such a treatment.

I've seen that when I metion to people that I'm an agnostic. "Oh, so you
don't believe in god then, huh?"  It isn't easy to consider that not
everything is black and white and that things need to  be sometimes
discussed with all possibilites in mind. So many people cannot stand to 
do anything but tell me that either I "believe in God or I don't".


>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 can imagine.

>
>>>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.

It goes on, I just didn't see a need to type it. The abortion 'protests' at the
clinics seem to fit number two well also.

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

The only one we have in town here is a beggar. He's not even a real priest.


>>What do you need to see?
>
>Any proof at all that your assertions are correct. 

What *assertions*?

> 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.

Unless he is disturbing me or persistenlty irritating me, then I'll help
him understand how unambiguous a term 'harassment' is.  Life is too short
to put up with *all* a**holes.


>>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 would have liked to have seen that.   What is your point?


>>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.

Judging by the tone of your posts, it is quite clear to me, and many 
others I've discussed your posts with, that it is a *major* emotional issue
for you. Would it be impossible that you simply don't see that?

As far as equal rights, I've addressed that in another post.

>>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.

Please list them. What are the 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. 

I never suspected you had any respect for *anyone* on this group. Indeed,
the issue of respect was never even brought up.


>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.

It is *usually*? So it is *always*? What if it is simply true? I don't
see any virtue in attacking someone I disagree with on a personal level. If
it gets to that point, I will simply ignore them as they have lost credibility
with me by that point and I see no need to waste time on them. I suggested
it merely as an observation. It's unfortunate you took it such and
reacted defensively.


>>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.

I would be taking my chances.

>You are a hypocrite.  In the above example, you are engaged in an action
>that is much viler to me (infanticide) 

I have not obtained nor performed an abortion. Abortions are none of my, nor
your, business. (IMO)

The fact that you said the above puts you in the light of a raging religous
zealotx; I frankly had given you much more credit for being otherwise.

I am a hypocrite in many respects, as we all are, but not in that one.

Also, early term abortions are not infanticide, they would be 'fetuscide'.
Infanticide is the killing of an infant. If you simply look in a dictionary
you will see the error in your terminology.


>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.

Or I'd clean your clock. True. I would probably not scream, I would most
likely get to business. Screaming is pointless.


>>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.

Thanks.

>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.

Well, I wasn't. Now that you are forwarned, if you do not wish to have 
a cleaned clock, don't harass me on the street. Posting nonsense is one 
thing, I *choose* to read it and respond. If you follow me to the step 
of an abortion clinic, or otherwise continue to harass me, I will,
as I said, 'express myself.'


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

Oh. Well, fine then. I disagree.

>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.

Very impressive, but what does this have to do with anything?

>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.

One thing that may contribute to many misunderstanding here is misdefinitions
of words.

>>>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.

No, but many pro-fascists have blown up clinic and sent bomb threats to 
doctors. This is telling of the level of 'morality' being preached.


>>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.

And you do... Naturally.


>>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.

It has definitely given the movement, and has all but destroyed the
Republican platform. So, yes, keep it up, please.

>>(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

Guess which fascist could have vetoed that but didn't...

> 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


-- 
David Knapp                                      University of Colorado, Boulder
Perpetual Student                                   knapp@spot.colorado.edu
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity