Re: Re: Freedom to Spew

On Wed, 21 Mar 2001, Pete O'Such wrote:

> 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.

But surely that's a *de facto* rather than an *in principle* failure? How
about this: I buy the copyright from his publisher. Or better, I solicit a
book from him in my role as a publisher, purchase the copyright, and don't
publish it.

Slimy, but not illegal. Deception, but there are probably variants which
aren't fraud. 

> >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.

You don't see *any* analogy? At all? Can you see why someone *might* think
that way?

> >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.

Well, we're certainly muddling the moral and the legal and (probably, the
tacticial). <sigh/> Can I make a *limited* point? Taking the papers
doesn't strike me as conclusive evidence of a total lack of respect for
free speech on the part of the protesters.

> As for what earned me the appelation of "git" from someone who accused me of 
> name calling, I'm not clear on that.

Clearly.

>  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.

And superfluous, as you presented what you took as fairly conclusive
evidence that my argument failed. Are you insenstive to tone?

>  I do see an embrace of sophistry 
> in defending the suppression of a valued means of speech to oppose an idea.

Well, we don't agree that that's what I'm doing. (I notice that you've
shifted from suppression of the *ideas* to suppression of the
*expression*/*means* of speech.)
  
> And the association with the Taliban

C'mon, go right for the Nazis!

> comes from their high-profile pursuit 
> of the same core concepts, the mass destruction of fruits of a medium to 
> suppress ideas they oppose.

And the cases are *exactly* alike? *Essentially* alike? Scarily, what the
Taliban are doing is *legal*, in just about every sense. Of *course* it
doesn't make it *right*. Or make me *happy* with it. But this is *merely*
a smear tactic in this context. Show me where the Taliban make arguments
similar to mine and well evaluate 1) whether they are relevantly similar,
and 2) whether they are wrong. Show me that my arguments commit me to
endorseing the destruction of the statues and I'll be *very* unhappy. It
won't, in itself, show that my arguments are *wrong*, although it'll be
excellent *prima facie* evidence for me.

The Nazi's had gun control and Hitler was a vegitarian. I endorse gun
control and I'm a vegitarian. Does this juxteposition show *anything*
about the "similarity" of me and Hitler and the Nazi's? Or is it just a
smear? Does it show anything about arguments I may have?

>  If being associated with that bothers you, then 
> that's the first encouraging thing I've heard from you so far.

The *first*?! Oooooookay!

>  Keep 
> thinking about everything that makes those parallels uncomfortable.

Interesting that you think I don't. For an exercise, I invite you to
consider everything that makes those parallels irrelevant. Heck, go on to
consider what might make such comparisons, in context, attempts at
intimidation. Not very successful ones, I'm afraid.

For the record, I think, and have expressed but *clearly* you need
explicit statement, that your orginal point was interesting and needed
thinking about. Several of your subsequent rejoiners have been well taken. 

But you do seem to have trouble with the idea of *working through* an
idea, or, at least, acknowledging such.

I'm not, in the end, sure what exact view I'll settle on and *that's part
of the point*. *Is* there a position between what's commonly known as free
speech absolutism and Nazi thuggary or the Taliban? Is that position
*justifiable*, or just disingenuous?

Note that in that section I'm specific and *questioning*.

"Why, why, why not? How is any of this stealing? Intimidation? Thuggery?

How is it different (circulation-wise) than organizing a boycott? "Don't
read the paper! It's running gross Horowitz stuff!" Is that a brown shirt
tactic?"

Forcing Horowitz to "sell" is different than (various kinds of) tricking
him is different from making him an offer so big he *doesn't* refuse.

One thing that's, IMHO, critical: not everything that would result in
Horowtiz's ideas not being discussed or his expressions not being
circulated counts as *suppressing* them. *Not* listening or thinking about
them doesn't count. Encouraging others not to listen or think about them
doesn't. Well, at least, necessarily. There are points where these things
alter.

If you don't think this position has *any* credibility, if you think it's
simply absurd on its face and upon any reflection, then I'm afraid we're
at *some* sort of impass. I'm still interested in working through some of
the consequences of such views. It would be *nice* to have someone
committed to the opposing view and intelligent to be the reality check
*but* not if each message is laced with condensending asides, espeically
if they aren't clever and amusing, but heavy handed and tiresome.

Cheers,
Bijan Parsia