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

[Tod Landis <landis@cruzio.com>]

  Here is the First Amendment to the Constitution.
     Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment
     of religon, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,  or abridging
     the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the
     people peacably to assemble,  and to petition the government
     for a redress of grievances.
  
  Here is a definition of racism:  (Random House Dictionary)
    1.a belief that human races have distinctive characteristics
       that determine their respective cultures, usually involving
       the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right
       to rule others
    2.a policy of enforcing such asserted right
    3.a system of government based upon it.
  
  I repeat:  the statement: you made that
  >>Racism and sexism (though not violence) is protected
  >by the First Amendment
  is wrong.
  
  (But thank you for the opportunity to quote the
  First Amendment.  Its been a favorite of mine for
  a long time)
  
  Tod Landis
  
  Declan McCullagh wrote:
  
  > Of course racism and sexism are protected by the First Amendment. Nazis
  > have the right to free speech, as they should. So do the Archie Bunkers and
  > Rush Limbaughs of the world. (Even if you don't speak those views you're
  > still allowed to think them.) I guess you don't get out much; otherwise
  > you'd hear ample proof of this every day.
  >
  > There are narrow exceptions to speech that "incites violence" (urging your
  > fellow KKKers at a Klan rally to burn down a church), but those don't in
  > any meaningful sense apply to written text. There are narrow exemptions to
  > sexist "workplace harassment" but even those have come under fire recently
  > by legal scholars.
  >
  > Your "counter to the spirit of American democracy" quip sounds nice but is
  > just plain wrong. The true spirit of American democracy is the freedom that
  > lies at the heart of the First Amendment. The way we preserve freedom in
  > this country is by limiting the power of the state, by barring the
  > government from deciding whether speech is good or bad. That means the
  > government is barred from banning racist or sexist speech.
  >
  > That we allow racist and sexist speech to exist is a sign of the amount of
  > liberty we enjoy in America.
  >
  > I don't mean to derail this list on 1A issues. If you care, I maintain a
  > mailing list called fight-censorship where such discussions are more
  > on-topic. Y'all are welcome to come over: http://www.well.com/~declan/fc/
  >
  > -Declan
  >
  > At 22:43 -0500 11/15/97, Tod Landis wrote:
  > >
  > >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:
  > >        http://www.splcenter.org/legal/la-4.html
  > >
  > >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
  > >>
  > >>  -
  >
  > .-