From: cmort@NCoast.ORG (Christopher Morton)
Subject: Re: KNOW YOUR RIGHTS (was: Re; Nilges)
Reply-To: cmort@ncoast.org (Christopher Morton)
Organization: North Coast Public Access *NIX, Cleveland, OH
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 20:48:25 GMT
Followup-To: misc.legal

As quoted from <1992Aug26.125505.27373@Princeton.EDU> by egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Ed Nilges):

> In article <1992Aug25.150827.11033@midway.uchicago.edu> hasn@midway.uchicago.edu (Sheheryar Hasnain) writes:
> >In the midst of this debate on free speech, I want to pose a question:  Does 
> >free speech exist in the US at all?  And if it is not consistent on all 
> 
> Damn, light dawns over the Midway.  That's what I've been asking: if
> free speech is such an absolute good, then why is it "trumped"
> (superseded) by anti-abortion forces and property rights?

The only light is obviously from the stars you saw when you hit your head.  
The only one here who's said that free speech is an absolute good is YOU.  Why
then do you argue against yourself?  Can't even find a strawman who'll take you
seriously?

> >Lets face it, there is no such thing as "free speech" in this country.  One 
> >cannot argue that "some" speech is free since freedom means all or nothing. 
> >
> 
> Here's where we part company.  Freedom does NOT mean "all or nothing."
> Gimme real freedom, hedged about with commonsense restrictions such as
> Justive Brandeis' "no freedom to shout "fire" in a crowded theater" over
> freedoms that are so formally overbroad that they are in practice

"Real" freedom?  You mean the freedom to parrot your party line?  We haven't
seen THAT kind of "freedom" since the digging of the White Sea Canal....

> unattainable.  In particular, the Supreme Court provided Viktora with
> the freedom to commit a tort and a crime (given the statements of many
> posters on the other side of this debate, who said that his conduct was
> ALREADY criminalized.)  Such an odd freedom: a freedom to get busted and
> to get sued for violating laws against assault that are already on the
> books, and a freedom, to screw up bad, of which libertarians seem
> particularly fond (see, for example, "gun liberties" which criminalize
> people by shoving guns in their hands.)

No, it's a freedom to do what Viktora DIDN'T do.  That's the case, all of your
obfuscation notwithstanding.  "Shoving guns in their hands"?  If you're going
to do dope, do BETTER dope.  

> It is illogical to state that Viktora was free by virtue of the First
> Amendment to commit a tort (no legal right to commit legal wrong,
> children) but then again Justice Clarence "who put the pubic hair in my
> Coke can" Thomas, at the bottom of much of this decision, ain't no giant
> brain.

You're absolutely right, it WOULD have been illogical for the court to have
said that.  That's why they DIDN'T.  As has been demonstrated endlessly by
numerous posters here, that's NOT what the court said.  You KNOW, that but
falsehood combined with knowledge of same is the requisite for a lie, isn't
it?

>      THIS IS A PUBLIC SERVICE ANNOUNCEMENT!  KNOW YOUR RIGHTS!
>      NUMBER THREE: YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO FREE SPEECH.  AS LONG AS
>      YOU'RE NOT DUMB ENOUGH TO ACTUALLY TRY IT!
> 
>                                  - The CLASH

Ah yes, I don't know why anybody would waste time on Rousseau, Marx, or Revel
when these giants of political economy are so available.  Have you heard
Debbi Gibson's latest analysis of the labor theory of value?  Totally
excellent dude....



-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------  

"Well whose opinions did you THINK these were...?" 
------------------------------------------------------------------  
Newsgroups: misc.legal