Re: Re: Freedom to Spew

You said "buy up all."  "All" is key word.  I cannot imagine any wholly 
legal course of events that ends with you possessing "all" copies of his 
books coming to pass.  That could be a failure of my imagination; it 
happens.

>Huh? The point is that they're free.
>Price zero. With no other restriction.
>Thus, under the "first sale" doctrine
>I can take them all.

The first sale doctrine applies to a sale.  The doctrine is relevant to 
trafficking in items that have been sold, hence my application to your 
comment on buying Horowitz's books.  I don't see an application for it 
regarding the newspapers, but you go ahead and have your fun.

>Did you miss the point about passing them out by hand?

No, you failed to grasp my response to it when I asked you consider barriers 
to expression.  It's about how the actions under discussion create barriers 
to expression, impinging on others' rights of expression.

As for what earned me the appelation of "git" from someone who accused me of 
name calling, I'm not clear on that.  I quoted "logic" because I find your 
statements illogical, and quoting it was the most compact and expressive 
means of connoting that that came to me.  I do see an embrace of sophistry 
in defending the suppression of a valued means of speech to oppose an idea.  
And the association with the Taliban comes from their high-profile pursuit 
of the same core concepts, the mass destruction of fruits of a medium to 
suppress ideas they oppose.  If being associated with that bothers you, then 
that's the first encouraging thing I've heard from you so far.  Keep 
thinking about everything that makes those parallels uncomfortable.


----Original Message Follows----
From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia-vEoVa6Jh+/J4piUD7e9S/[email protected]>
To: "Pete O'Such" <[email protected]>
CC: bonobos-4GNy1lrxftmrG/[email protected]
Subject: Re: [Bonobos] Re: Freedom to Spew
Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2001 23:33:08 -0500 (EST)

On Tue, 20 Mar 2001, Pete O'Such wrote
 > >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.

Er.. please note when you change my scenarios. I *didn't* say force. I
said *buy up*.

 >  What makes it illegal is that you would be enforcing your will
 > on Horowitz with no legal authority to do so.

Well duh. But if horowitz sold the copyright, he'd be up shit creek if I
bought it.

 > 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.

Right. And I didn't say otherwise.

 > 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.

Huh? The point is that they're free. Price zero. With no other
restriction. Thus, under the "first sale" doctrine I can take them all.

Did you miss the point about passing them out by hand?

 >  That's what we call "wrong."  It's a handy concept.

"Responding to what people actually write." One for you.

 > 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.

Yes, it's nice, except for the vandalism angle. I mean, why *inserts*? Why
not just piles beside the newspaper?

BTW, and I ask this with all sincerity, are you going to continue to be a
git? I've not been rude to you (ok, you provoked me a bit, finally, in
this note) but you've been exceeding rude to me (even whilst refining your
presentation and ideas in response to my objections).

Isn't that the *point* of exchange?

Cheers,
Bijan Parsia.


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