From: Michael Lorrey (retroman@together.net)
Date: Mon Mar 01 1999 - 20:49:01 MST
Timothy Bates wrote:
> "Michael
> made me laugh out loud by saying
>
> > As long as the Brits are... going to throw the baby out the window, they
> > might as well toss the bath water with it too....
> ;-)
>
> Anyhow, I said
> >> Is free speech all speech which does not
> >> directly aid specific acts of violence?
>
> and mike concurred
> > yes.
>
> We had a woman talk to us last year who supported Dworkin' s position that
> whatever a powerless person (apparently this included women) said was
> harmful was harmful. And the FACT of its harmfulness was proven by the
> "victims" statement to that effect.
>
> In other words, whatever I think is bad, is, and you have no defense
> whatsoever and you will go to jail for causing me to say you harmed me.
>
> This just about made me cry it is so stupidly arrogant.
Dworkin is a dwork. Why the hell was she not at Kathleen Willey's side
denouncing the President? Why was she not at Paula Jones' side? Why is she not
now at Ms. Broaddrick's side, shouting from the rooftops for the bobbitting of
slick Willey? She's an opportunistic manipulative man hater who knows that Bill
plays the same gambit she does. And she's too arrogant to actually be seen on
the same side of the aisle as the conservatives. She was embarrassed enough when
it happened over pornography.
> So, how do we explicitly exclude from "violence" all notions of subjective
> harm such as this?
Hearsay is inadmissable. Always has been, and hopefully always will be. One good
thing to come out of the failed impeachment is that the whole 'harassment' scam
so many women have been pulling has been nullified. I can't imagine anyone
winning a case now that Bill got off even with evidence such as the dress
against him.
> Do we exclude people's "self esteem" and other such intangible's from their
> property?
better yet, women who make such spurious claims should face countersuits for
frivolous tort.
> PS: I think these are critical issues for extropy as many of the
> technologies which we embrace are already illegal, and their adoption is
> retarded if the law forbids their free discussion.
>
> I was surprised too, to see that this list is not wrapped up in
> encryption/privacy discussions, as it was some years ago.
Encryption is pretty much accepted in these parts as a primary need for
privacy. There are still the total openness hangers on who cannot be conviced,
like Halperin, Brin, et al. Its a long ended battle. There really isn't much new
to argue about.
--
TANSTAAFL!!!
Michael Lorrey, President
Lorrey Systems
------------------------------------------------------------
mailto:mike@lorrey.com
------------------------------------------------------------
"A society which trades freedom for some measure of security
shall wind up with neither." -----Benjamin Franklin
"The tree of Liberty should be watered from time to time
with the blood of tyrants and patriots."
-----Thomas Jefferson
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security
of a Free State, the Right of the People to keep and bear
arms shall not be infringed." -----US Constitution,
2nd Amendment
"You can have my gun when you pry it out of my cold, dead
hands..." -----Anonymous
"Once we got their guns away from them, taking their
money was REAL easy." -----Unknown North Korean
Commissar
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:03:12 MST