Re: Re: Freedom to Spew

>Is it ok for me to buy up all the copies of
>his books and make a bonefire while chanting
>"Horowitz is a pig?" It's certainly legal.

Incorrect.  There is no legal way for you to force Horowitz to sell you all 
the copies.  What makes it illegal is that you would be enforcing your will 
on Horowitz with no legal authority to do so.

The first sale doctrine would let you attempt to purchase every copy sold 
from whoever bought it, but Horowitz has no obligation to sell any copies 
directly to you.

Absconding with all the copies of the college paper is also an attempt to 
enforce your will upon other unwilling participants with no legal 
justification.  That's what we call "wrong."  It's a handy concept.

I like the insert idea.  It's direct action that gets more information to 
exactly the right people without erecting barriers to the expression of 
others.  Good stuff.



----Original Message Follows----
From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia-vEoVa6Jh+/J4piUD7e9S/[email protected]>
To: bonobos-4GNy1lrxftmrG/[email protected]
CC: "Pete O'Such" <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [Bonobos] Re: Freedom to Spew
Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2001 23:04:23 -0500 (EST)

On Tue, 20 Mar 2001, Dave Rolsky wrote:

 > On Tue, 20 Mar 2001, Bijan Parsia wrote:
 >
 > > I take your point, but I'm not sure you've taken mine. I've never 
denied
 > > that taking the paper prevents people from getting one. That would be
 > > insane. That's the *point*. I've denied that it's theft. I think it's
 > > called theft to stigmatize it, which I don't see as a good thing.
 >
 > I'd agree its not theft and I'd agree that its being called theft to
 > stigmatize it.

Not just. It invokes state power against the protester which is,
ordinarily, a very minor offense, if it is an offense at all. Part of teh
criminalization of dissent. *Even if* it were technically illegal.

 >  However, I still don't think that taking all the papers
 > for the express purpose of denying others the ability to read them is a
 > good thing.

Didn't say it was. Nor did I imply it.

 >Nor is it terribly defensible

Defensible in what sense? AFAICT, it's legally a-ok. I don't think
Horowitz's taking out an ad in school papers is terribly defensible, nor
do I think that soft money contributions are *at all* defensible, but
they're totally legal.

 > or likely to convince others
 > that you are right.

At least *part* of that lack is *due* the propaganda (and, to be fair, the
arguments) of free speechers, Hororwitz, and Rosenthal. What if they *are*
right? It's pure *ad hominim* to conclude that they're wrong because of
other things they do. Did Rosenthal help establish that Horowitz was
wrong? I don't think so.

 > A much better reaction would be to go find all the papers and insert a
 > rejoinder to the offensive speech.

Vandalism. (Seriously! Some people did this.)

 >  I'm thinking here of instances I know
 > in San Francisco where prison activists went to and added a new 'front
 > page' to all of the city's papers.  This is a very cool and smart tactic.

Yeah, but couple this with the other point that Horowitz is *trying* to
provoke. People are people. They are provokable. It's important to note
that. I don't think *hectoring* people is going to bring them to calm.

It's a case of do as you preach.

 > > Again, if we have expansive notions of protecting speech (as some do),
 > > then the taking of the papers and burning them may be a form of speech. 
A
 > > vital, unique form of expression. Not one I particularly care for, but 
I
 > > don't care for the particular expression of Horowitz's ideas either.
 >
 > Burning the papers may be a form of speech, but it is a form that has
 > several negative effects:

Sure. So does Horowitz's.

 > - First, it suppresses someone else's free speech (however odious it may
 > be).

Unclear. It prevents a particular instance of an expression. That
expression is freely and widely available *espeically* to our increasingly
wired campases.

The best you can hope for is a chilling effect argument I think. And given
Horowitz's nature, *that* won't get far! :)

 > - Second, it arrogantly suggests that the burners are in a better 
position
 > to judge what is acceptable reading than anyone else is.

Err, *what* it suggests may be arrogant, but is the way they suggest it
arrogant? What if they think (however wrongly) that common consent is with
them?

More likely, the burning is a *form of communication*. It *communicates*
that they feel very very very strongly that it's unacceptible. It does so
in an unique way. Is it ok for me to buy up all the copies of his books
and make a bonefire while chanting "Horowitz is a pig?" It's certainly
legal. It prevents everyone else from reading the book. Doesn't that
expose something *troubling* about our "freedom of speech"?

 > Both of these are problematic.  Its hard for me, on principle, to defend
 > free speech that is explicitly designed to suppress other's speech.

Sure. Er...maybe. "What you say is butt stupid so please, STFU." That's
designed to suppress othere's speech and sometimes it's appropriate. I
can't see why you're *in principle* opposed to it, unless they're some
special moral interpretation to "suppress". But, one of my key points,
Horowitz does almost nothing *but* that.

 > The second seems to be a tactical error in that it seems likely to
 > alienate undecided 'listeners'.

Of course, if *this* decides them, they are morally and intellectually
hopeless. The tacitcal error is that it let's people *conceal* their
hopelessness with a free speech mask. This is the *essence* of the "anti
pc" movement.

 >  My thought is that if Horowitz's
 > positions are so revolting, then let them be heard and judged by anyone
 > interested.

Taking the papers doesn't stop that. Surely we have to interpret this on a
case by case basis.

 >  I would find it rather offensive that someone else thinks I
 > shouldn't be allowed to read it and judge for myself and this would
 > predispose me to think negatively of them, making it more difficult for
 > them to get their message across to me.

Then you don't like editors? Or teachers? Or reviewers? There's some
points of disanalogy of course, but *some* sort of subtlty is required in
your argument.

 > It doesn't seem like either side is in good company here.

Some worse than others :)

 >Associating
 > one's position with the long history of book-burners hardly seems like a
 > good idea.

Burning books to oppress or destroy is a different case. We can't look at
these things in isolation. Patterns matter.

And yes, I would strongly consider publishing Horowitz's crap (god, not
*all* of it though; the man *does* blather on) on Monkeyfist (don't hurt
me Kendall) if he *really was being surpressed*. But dang, there are
plenty of actually supressed people I'd publish before him.

 >  On the flip side, we have people working themselves into
 > hysteric fits over small transgressions while ignoring their own.

Yep.

Cheers,
Bijan.


_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com