Re: Re: Freedom to Spew

A few points that occurred to me that might prove clarificatory.

I think there's reason to object to the non-force version of buying up the 
books or the buying of the copyright (for the purpose of not publishing 
it). It's clearly not illegal, and it may even be (in some circumstances, 
all things considered) morally permissible. But there's something worrisome 
about it. At best, it's not morally *ideal*. *Maybe* because of the fact 
that it demonstrates or expresses a certain lack of respect for freedom of 
communication, although it might not *inherently* do so. And for some 
particular person, that might be balanced by their other expressions and 
actions. Hard to imagine, but not impossible.

Second, there are clearly "speech" ways to discourage speech and thought 
that are permissible. These may, in fact, harm the target and be unwelcome 
to putative audiences (who may be upset at being deprived, or just deprived 
and that would be a harm). Horowitz, for example, through relentless 
invective, makes it rather hard to oppose him reasonably. And he does that 
on purpose. He'd love it if his opponants would shut up. So, it comes down 
to, is the taking of *one* run of *one* issue of a *free* paper (let's add 
that there's a website where you can read the issue, as well) so *very* 
different? What if I took them in order to make a 10 foot tall paper mache 
statue of Horowitz in a clan hood? Would it make a difference if I had 
*bought* the run before it could be distributed? Would it make a difference 
if I asked each person as they took a copy to sell it to me for a doller 
*without reading it*?

If it's to be *dis*analogous to a buying the copyright from the publisher 
against Horowitz's will (after he's sold it) on ground of a force component 
(or theft componant) where is that theft or force? (As Kendall pointed out, 
they weren't ripping them out of people's hands, or jostling them out of 
the way. They just got up earlier.)

I rather suspect that it *remains* analogous to that non-force case as in 
it's still objectionable on various grounds. But not *any* old grounds! 
Just because one did something *wrong* or merely *not the best* doesn't 
mean that someone else gets to treat you as a criminal, or a facist, or a 
Talibanese.

Finally, it's odd to paint this as a "disease of the left" as Rosenthal 
does. This kind of manuever (as I tried to point out) is a fairly natural 
reaction. The "freeness" of the paper, I'd submit, makes it easy to 
conceive of as being relevantly similar to buying up copies (even if my 
claim that it *is* similar is wrong). I might be swayed by a sign saying 
"Only one copy per person". But *that* would rule out my taking 10 copies 
because I wanted to cut out a bunch of articles as well.

Cheers,
Bijan Parsia.