Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,misc.legal,alt.postmodern,alt.censorship
Subject: Re: Hate Speech Okay, says the Supreme Court
From: lippard@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu (James J. Lippard)
Date: 29 Jul 1992 10:18 MST  
 <28JUL199210591600@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu> <1992Jul29.141822.10527@Princeton.EDU>
Distribution: world,local
Organization: University of Arizona
Keywords: egnilges
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    

In article <1992Jul29.141822.10527@Princeton.EDU>, egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Ed Nilges) writes...
>In article <28JUL199210591600@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu> lippard@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu (James J. Lippard) writes:
>>Add this to the list of the lies of Nilges, which also include:
>>  1.  Robert Viktora caused the Jones family to move from their home in
>>      St. Paul, Minnesota.  (They still live in the same home and have
>>      no plans to move; see N.Y. Times 6/23/92.)
> 
>That's not my information, but I am going to get the (different) article
>I saw as soon as I can get over to a NYT archive.  This may be in a few
>weeks, as I am going to be away from the net (thank God) for two week
>starting this Saturday (I'll be on an Outward Bound mountaineering
>expedition in the Sierras.)  Anyhow, you obscure the fact that the
>family was terrorized, and the net, collectively, has obscured the fact
>that the cross was burned on a black family's lawn by repeatedly
>claiming that the law was "agin" people who'd burn a cross on their own
>lawn.  In short, there are misstatements, there are lies, there is
>disinformation and there are Big lies.

*No one* has claimed that the law was *only* against people who burn a
cross on their own lawn.  They *have* claimed, correctly, that the
hate-crime law did not distinguish between burning a cross on your own
lawn or on someone else's.

>>  2.  The overturning of the St. Paul ordinance amounts to an endorsement
>>      of cross-burning on the lawns of anyone at all, and lets Viktora go
>>      free.  (Viktora is still facing an assault charge; same NYT.)
> 
>This is your fabrication.  Viktora is only facing an assault charge as a
>sop to people outraged at the dropping of the hate speech charge.  In
>the absence of the hate speech law, his behavior would have been treated
>as a prank.  In other words, the existence of hate speech laws allows
>Viktora-style pranks to be plea-bargained down to assault whereas in the
>absence of such laws it's too much trouble for the justice system to
>prosecute for assault (unless it's a case of BLACK youths Mau-Mauing a
>WHITE neighborhood, in which event Katy bar the door.)

I have fabricated nothing.  Viktora did not plea bargain the hate crime
violation down to assault, he was simultaneously charged with both.
(If he had plea bargained, the case would never have gone to the SC.)

>>just what Schaffer lied about.  It would not surprise me if this is
>>itself another Nilges lie.  (I wonder if Nilges was one of those who
>>defended Paul de Man for collaborating with Nazis.)
> 
>Ah yes, Paul de Man, monstrum horrendum, whose fault lay mainly in failure
>to conceal his wartime publications.  If a Fascist government came to
>power in the United States and started monitoring the net for loyalty,
>90 percent of the posters to the net would be scrambling to hit just the
>right note for the powers that be.  Paul de Man's other fault lay in
>child support evasion, and we have an entire group dedicated to the fine
>art of same, so do be quiet about Paul de Man.

I see you *still* haven't substantiated your charge against Henry
Schaffer.  As for de Man, I doubt that posters to the net would create
pro-Nazi propaganda if Nazis came to power.  (And any who did, even if 
it was a high percentage, would still be wrong to do so.  Your defense
fails to work, and confirms my "wondering" above.)

Jim Lippard              Lippard@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU
Dept. of Philosophy      Lippard@ARIZVMS.BITNET
University of Arizona
Tucson, AZ 85721
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,misc.legal,alt.postmodern,alt.censorship