From: egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Ed Nilges)
Newsgroups: misc.legal,alt.politics.correct
Subject: Re: Once more into the breach, dear friends (was: Re: Ted babbles again
Date: 13 Sep 92 19:17:30 GMT
Organization: Princeton University
Originator: news@nimaster

In article <1992Sep13.132720.26920@eff.org> mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin) writes:
>Then Ted Frank writes:
>
>>>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.
>
>Then Ed Nilges responds in a sort of non sequitur:

"Non sequitur" is impressive sounding Latin which means literally "does
not follow" but in modern-day America means "damned if I can figger out
the connection here", or in short, "duh."

>
>>Tedster, you cannot escape the logical consequences of your silly
>>beliefs.  If you support the hate speech decision, then you must let
>>"Adolf" post.

Mike, Ted is on record (in the "Hate Speech OK, Supreme Court Says"
thread) as believing in the absolute primacy of free speech.  "Adolf"
was exercising his "free speech."  Ergo, the Tedster is committed to
defending Adolf, even as the Supreme Cort told St Paul that Viktora was
exercising speech when he trashed a black family's lawn.  

I do hope this helps.

>
>It should be noted that one may disagree with sentences two and three
>in Ed Nilges's first paragraph and still support the Supreme Court's
>decision in R.A.V. ("the hate speech decision"). I agree with the decision
>in R.A.V., but I am certain mere criticism of someone's postings does not
>create a "chilling effect" as that term is used in the context of 
>American jurisprudence. Nor does the First Amendment require that a
>private-entity Usenet site administrator give anyone access, or deny
>that administrator any right to "boot him off the net" by, say, closing
>his account.

(1) I have already shown, Mike, that taking positive enjoyment in
heat-sans-light flamefests (as opposed to real dialog) is terroristic in
Lyotard's technical sense, and that it deconstructs stated committments
to free speech.  Lyotard, in The PostModern Condition, defines terrorism
as dialog termination.  In criticising Adolf rather than
Adolf-manufacturing structures, one shows disinterest in dialog, for
obviously Adolf is incapable of dialog (as is Viktora.)  In taking
positive delight in the fact that Adolf posts since then you can prove
your right-thinking credentials in a costless fashion, and in taking
further delight in flaming folks like Sheheryar, one conclusively
establishes a lack of interest in the DIALOG that is a necessary part
of free speech.  Free speech becomes nothing more than the powerless
ravings of the homeless man in Grand Central Station.  The suspicion
grows that this was the desired outcome.

(2) Usenet was created with taxpayer dollars when it originated in the
Sixties as Arpanet.  As such property rights are not absolute within
Usenet as a whole.  Even within "private" sites, there is no reason why
First Amendment rights should not trump property rights.  They already
trump ordinary standards of common decency (as in the case of
Penthouse's "right" to trash Miss Wyoming.)  Finally, these private
sites owe their very existence to the creation of Arpanet with taxpayer
dollars.

>
>R.A.V. concerned a different legal issue: whether it is Constitutional
>to allow state action that punishes someone for expressing hateful
>ideas.

Bullshit, fella.  The law enhanced the penalties for pre-existing acts
that were already illegal.
Newsgroups: misc.legal,misc.misc