From: thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Citecheck Hell)
Subject: Re: Once more into the breach, dear friends (was: Re Ed babbles again
Reply-To: thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1992 18:20:28 GMT

In article <1992Sep12.161300.5813@Princeton.EDU> egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Ed Nilges) writes:
>In article <1992Sep12.044712.22743@midway.uchicago.edu> thf2@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>>In article <1992Sep12.021547.1223@Princeton.EDU> egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Ed Nilges) writes:
>>>But according to the arguments of Ted "Tedster" Frank, Charles "Goofus"
>>>Perez, Henry "Jackanapes" Schaffer, and Chris "Knucklehead" Morton, Adolf
>>>is a noble citizen exercising his right of free speech, is he not?
>>>Criticising poor Adolf creates a "chilling effect" on his freedom
>>>of speech and as such should not be done.  Booting him off the net would
>>>violate, would it not, Adolf's First Amendment rights.
>>
>>Sorry.  Don't agree with statements two or three in your paragraph.
>>You'll just have to misattribute them to someone else, because I
>>certainly never made any arguments of the kind.
>
>Tedster, you cannot escape the logical consequences of your silly
>beliefs.  If you support the hate speech decision, then you must let
>"Adolf" post.

That does not mean (1) that I believe criticism "chills" speech, or that
(2) I believe that the owner of the machine from which the bozo posted
should be forced against her will to allow the bozo to post, should she decide
to boot him/her off the net.

>Yet, with the instinct for the trivial which is the hallmark of the
>media, if a pol lets slip a perjorative word, he's ipso facto a racist
>or an anti-Semite in the logic of the sound bite.  This is the idiot
>nonthought of the lynch mob.

But is it not hate speech?  What is the "redeeming social value"
of the word "hymie"?  Or are you backing off from your claims about hate
speech?  (I also note that within the last fifteen months, more Jews have
been lynched than blacks have in New York City, about which Jackson made
his comments.)

Make up your mind, Ed.

>
>One of my Chicago business associates has the unfortunate habit of
>telling funny, and sexist, stories.  When he saw a bumper sticker on my
>car saying "another man against violence against women", the guy asked
>if he could write under it "'cept on Saturday night."  Yet this man has
>been described by mutual female acquaintances as one of the least sexist
>men they know, and as far as I can determine this is the case.  The
>"humor" is a legacy of this guy's years as a salesman (a salesman who's
>read more than you, I'd hazard.)

It's a shame that your hate speech law would have him jailed.

>
>The REAL racism, sexism and anti-Semitism in our society has nothing to
>do with unfortunate phrases and funny stories, 

Really?  Then why did you flame me for knowing about Gallagher and Shean?
And why do you continue to make an issue out of a long-dead radio show?

>>
>>Meanwhile, Ed, I'm waiting for you to define a hate-speech law that would
>>ban Viktora and "Amos'n'Andy," but leave uncensored what you called the
>>"high quality" work of the Marx Brothers and the "honesty" of Henry Miller.
>
>You want law to be a sort of machine that operates of itself while you
>go off and golf, or buy a BMW, or play with yourself.  Indeed, part of
>the attraction of law 'n economix to you is the fact that it appears to
>render decidable that which appears to you to be undecidable (eg., that
>which takes thought.)  For you can replace the judge with a cash
>register.

Ah, Ed, your continued ignorance of law and economics is amusing.  Have
you read *anything* about law and economics?

Answer the question.  

>The original obscenity decision, dear Ted, made "redeeming social value"
>a criteria.  Although (unsurprisingly, given their lack of intellect)
>the sitting Supreme Court justices forgot to think about "redeeming
>social value", it is obvious to the imaginative that the doctrine can be
>generalized and applied to Viktora, whose acts had zero-or-negative
>social value, as well as to Amos 'n Andy which is (quite apart from its
>racism) garbage.

What is it that causes "Amos'n'Andy" to not have "redeeming social
value," while Henry Miller does?  Have you read Kate Millett on Miller
yet?
-- 
           .........................................................
          ted frank | thf2@midway.uchicago.edu | standard disclaimers
         the university of chicago law school, chicago, illinois 60637
         here i sit looking for a warming smile in a house of cold wit
Newsgroups: misc.legal,alt.politics.correct,alt.censorship