From: lefty@apple.com (Lefty)
Newsgroups: alt.flame,talk.politics.guns,talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Rights and Legal Manuevering (Was Re: democratic platform)
Date: 15 Sep 92 00:20:52 GMT
Organization: Our Lady of Heavy Artillery

In article <1992Sep14.040317.734@rotag.mi.org>, kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin
Darcy) wrote:
> 
> In article <lefty-270892171232@lefty.apple.com> lefty@apple.com (Lefty) writes:
> >In article <1992Aug24.053620.8705@rotag.mi.org>, kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin
> >"I'm not a lawyer, but I play one on the net" Darcy) wrote, inadvisedly:
> >> 
> >> In article <1992Jul29.172609.15837@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) writes:
> >> 
> >> >>Does EVERYONE constitute "the press"?
> >> >
> >> >Actually, they do.  
> >> 
> >> Wrong. To be "the press", one has to produce some sort of written matter.
> >> Speaking aloud, for instance, does make one "the press", even though both
> >> written and spoken communications are protected by the First. Written 
> >> matter is not protected under "free speech". Spoken matter is not 
> >> protected under "freedom of the press". They are separate and distinct 
> >> rights, and, in each case, refer to SUBSETS of "the people" -- those who 
> >> have spoken, and those who have written, respectively.
> >
> >This tortuous and clearly erroneous interpretation will no doubt be of
> >great interest to broadcast journalists.
> 
> I doubt it. I'm sure they all realize that First Amendment protections can't
> be invoked unless they actually say something (or at least communicate it 
> using some mutually-intelligible medium).

I understand the depth of your reading comprehension problems, Kevin, but I
quoted you (and you quoted me quoting you) as saying "To be 'the press',
one has to produce some sort of written matter".

As I say, I'm sure it would come as a surprise to Ted Koppel, for instance,
that he wasn't a member of "the press", and wasn't protected by the freedom
thereof.

> Lefty, you seem to be implying that the First Amendment applies even in the
> absence of communication. Is it your contention that the Amendment covers
> mere THOUGHTS, then (the obvious corollary)? 

I'm implying no such thing, and if the number of points in your IQ exceeded
the number of degrees in the appropriate serving temperature of a good
Cabernet, you'd realize that.

> >> I see another name. Who the hell is "Cruikshank", and is he or she a
> >> credible source for ANYTHING WHATSOEVER?
> >
> >US vs. Cruikshank, sometime in the late 1870s, a decision in which it was
> >stated that the right to keep and bear arms was was an "inalienable" right
> >as opposed to one "granted" by the Constitution.
> 
> Then Mr. Freeman needs some serious help with his legal citation style. It 
> is not normal to say "X said ...", where X is a court opinion, and 
> -especially- if X is shortened form of the case name, e.g. "Cruikshank" for 
> _US vs. Cruikshank_, or e.g. "Roe" for _Roe v. Wade_. One would expect, 
> instead, to see this phrased as "in X, it was ruled that ...".  Furthermore, 
> case names in EITHER form should be graphically indicated, e.g. by the use 
> of italics or full underlining, in a typeset document, or some facsimile 
> thereof in a character-based medium such as Usenet (my personal preference, 
> as you can see above, is the use of leading and trailing underline symbols, 
> _thus_, but many other variations are acceptable).

Thank you _very_ much for your extremely useful advice, Justice Darcy, but
we're not producing legal briefs here.  Cruikshank is a well known decision
to anyone making noises anywhere in the immediate vicinity of the Second
Amendment.  It's just as though you'd posted on talk.abortion, "Who the
hell is 'Roe', and is he or she a credible source for ANYTHING WHATSOEVER?"

Bottom line: you're looking more foolish than ever, Kevin.

> >But of course you wouldn't know that, would you, Mr. "Servitus Tigni
> >Immitendi"?  
> 
> I see my bitter sarcasm still has your ego reeling, even after all these
> months. Well, as they say, "Fuck 'em if they can't take a joke"...

No joke.  Your foolish and arrogant assumption that you could pass off a
species of easement as a "legal principle" having anything to do with your
ridiculous contentions that you're entitled to charge for "archive service"
based on the fact that I refuse to explain my signature to you still has a
large portion of alt.flame snickering.  (Planning on billing me any time
soon, Archive Boy?)

In your own inimitable way, you've managed to achieve a species of
immortality with that one.  You fucked up publicly in a major and
embarassing way.  You got caught at it.  You looked stupid.  Again. 
Nothing new there, eh, Kevin?

> >I see your grasp of Constitutional law equals your grasp of contract law.
> 
> Thanks for the compliment.

I personally wouldn't consider being made to look like an idiot a
"compliment".  Your mileage obviously varies significantly.

--
Lefty (lefty@apple.com)
C:.M:.C:., D:.O:.D:.
Newsgroups: alt.flame