[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Spin isn't an argument (Re: FW: MS's response to Nader)

  >Racism and sexism (though not violence) is protected
  by the First Amendment
  This is not true.  Racism and sexism are not protected by
  anything in the Constitution or Bill of Rights.  In fact, they
  run counter to the spirit of American democracy and they
  are unconstitutional..
  There is a discussion of various landmark cases in this area
  at the Southern Poverty Law Center site:
  Tod Landis
  Declan McCullagh wrote:
  > At 18:35 -0500 11/15/97, Kendall G. Clark wrote:
  > >I heard Rev. Jesse Jackson on CNN this week say that ``exclusion is a form of
  > >violence.'' He was, of course, talking about racism and sexism, but couldn't a
  > >similar moral point be made against MS?
  > Jackson is over the top. Violence violates your right to be free from
  > assault, from someone punching you in the face. Racism and sexism (though
  > not violence) is protected by the First Amendment; I have a right to
  > express my racist/sexist beliefs as long as I don't punch you in the face.
  > "Exclusion" does not violate your "rights."
  > >Granted, it is not politically fascistic like Stalin, Mao, or Hitler for them
  > >to exclude others from information for profit. But it is, nevertheless, a form
  > >of or desire for totalitarian control.
  > Obviously excluding others from information for profit is a sign of the
  > Antichrist. Every time I buy a magazine's worth of information from the
  > corner newsstand, I can smell the scent of sulfur. When I buy a book's
  > worth of information from Barnes and Noble I see the horns of the devil on
  > the head of the cashier. When I have to PAY (oh, the horrors!) for a
  > compact disc, I recognize the mark of the beast.
  > You've convinced me: It's time to do away with capitalism! Clearly Cuba is
  > the economic model we must adopt. Their technology is, of course, superior
  > to none.
  > >Those facts may be important to evaluating their credibility (the degree to
  > >which you can take their avowals at face value), but they are irrelevant to
  > >the logic of the arguments themselves.
  > Agreed. The logic of an argument does not depend on who's arguing.
  > Microsoft should have answered them head-on. It would have been useful
  > (from my perspective) for some of their executives to be there, even if
  > elsewhere in the hotel where they could have answered some of these hard
  > questions.
  > >That's not an argument, and it's not a refutation of an argument. It's just
  > >pure spin, it's propaganda.
  > Which (let's be honest) was in plentiful supply at the Nader conference too.
  > -Declan
  > .-