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

[Tod Landis <landis@cruzio.com>]

  Yes, that's a racist statement.  One that anyone can make.  Now
  reread my previous post.  The word "racism" does not mean
  "racist statement".  (No more ad hominem, please.  Notice
  that I don't use it)
  
  You get to have the last word on this.  This is my last posting
  to this thread.
  
  Tod Landis
  
  Declan McCullagh wrote:
  
  > You fool. You don't make legal arguments by quoting Random House dictionaries.
  >
  > Okay, I say "white people are an inferior race." A racist statement, I'm
  > sure you'll agree. Now cite statutory law and caselaw to tell me how you'll
  > punish me for it. Do your worst.
  >
  > -Declan
  >
  > At 03:08 -0500 11/16/97, Tod Landis wrote:
  > >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
  > >> >>
  > >> >>  -
  > >>
  > >>  -
  >
  > .-