Re: Re: Freedom to Spew

On Tue, 20 Mar 2001, Michael Zara wrote:

> Aww, Bij... I know you love lawyers!

With a bit of molton copper... ;)

> Anyway, the stealing papers bit was the only thing I didn't like in your
> piece.  The piece stands without it.  To me, stealing papers is like
> shouting down someone in an argument -- not, heckling, mind you, but making
> it impossible for them to speak.

Of course, this is all complicated by the fact that shouting down in one
venue may not diminish the "total" freedom of the "victim".

Take George W. Bush. Clearly, he has more effective freedom of speech than
just about everyone else, probably in the world. If I (effectively) shout
him down in *one* (symbolic) venue, I've not dimished his effective
freedom of speech, or blocked his ideas from the "marketplace" (hock
ptui) of ideas. But I *have* made an effective statement. I could
communicate my message in other ways, but that particular expression of
them is uniquely effective. The case is rather different than if I shout
down Chomsky, or follow Horowitz around and shout him down in every venue.

I think a lot of this is not well thought out. If the grounding of the
right is the communication of *ideas*, then it seems that restricting
(though, perhaps, *not* with state power) certain sorts of means of
*expression* is legitimate, even if they put a unique "spin" on the ideas
(i.e., contribute to some degree to the content).

I've been moving toward being a *utilitarian* of freedom of speech and of
*good* speech....another article, another day.

Notice that the student paper has *all* the (what counts as) state
apparatus behind it...money, a press, sanction, a distribution network,
and now enforcment by the police *plus* their own individual ability to
harass *plus* smart ass pundits.

There are slippery slopes to be considered...and I think they're important
to consider, but we have to be clear on the facts of the situation
*first*.

>  That they are free is immaterial -- I
> don't believe that speech should be commodified anyway, but that seems the
> implicit result of the defense of stealing papers.

No. See above :) See below, and my rely to the first guy for a different,
related, and originally intended point.

> Come to think of it though, I may just have misinterpreted your whole point:

Yes.

> that "stealing" is the wrong metaphor to be used -- free papers *can't* be
> stolen,

Right. The DOS interpretation was interesting though.

> so why obfuscate the speech issue with a ham-handed, Horiwitzian
> attempt to morally condemn the paper-takers as thieves?

Exactly. Plus people have used that to invoke police and university power
against the protesters.

>  You know, this
> whole law school business may just be making my thinking fuzzier.  I take
> solace in the possibility of a job at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, though, with
> that job qualification.  ;-)

Got my vote. Just let me head up your VP "search" committee (I'll polish
my mirrors :)).

Cheers,
Bijan Parsia.