Re: Re: Freedom to Spew

>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.

A publisher does not necessarily own the copyright to works it publishes.  
Arrangements exist in which publishers license works but the author retains 
the copyright.  Purchasing the copyright is still something Horowitz would 
have to acquiesce to.  And, again that word "all" is still in play, which 
would include extant copies of previous Horowitz books that are covered by 
the first sale doctrine and which owning the copyright for gives no 
influence over.  Right back where this sidebar started, and no more informed 
for the round trip.

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

No, I don't see any "analogy" between the first sale doctrine and denying 
access to a newspaper.  Nor do I see any application, relevance or worth in 
connecting these orthogonal concepts.  They are wholly unrelated.

>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.

Although I have already stated that I see no legal justification for taking 
the papers, the legality of taking the papers is almost no concern (any 
legal defense of taking the papers may be trivially overcome by labeling the 
papers "First copy per person: free.  Each additional copy per person: $5).  
It just isn't interesting.

Watching someone try to defend the suppression of speech they don't like, 
that's interesting.

Yes, I find the act of denying access to newspapers because you disagree 
with what they contained to be openly hostile toward and immediately 
damaging to free speech.

>Are you insenstive to tone?

Possibly.  I've been accused of worse.  Most times it was more entertaining, 
though.

>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.

No, I will not, because it is not about comparing your statements to the the 
Taliban's actions.  It is about comparing the thieves' (or "attackers" to 
remain within the DOS framework) actions with the Taliban's actions.

>>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.

That statement highlights parallels between the actions of the 
thieves/attackers and the actions of the Taliban, not the words of Bijan 
Parsia and the actions of Taliban.  I've not seen any attempt at 
justification from the Taliban, so I lack one of the subjects needed to 
compare Bijan Parsia to the Taliban.  Or, conversely, Bijan Parsia, you 
could do that which you attempt to defend, and then I could directly 
compare, actions to actions, yours and the Taliban's.

But please do not take that as encouragement to engage in "the mass 
destruction of fruits of a medium to suppress ideas they oppose."

>Hitler was a vegitarian.

Incorrect.

>The *first*?! Oooooookay!

Replace that with "most" if it will soften the blow for you.

>*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?

I think so, and that is the belief that has guided my statements.  A persons 
speech should have limits, and those limits should be found at the 
intersection with others' rights, including but not limited to the others' 
right to free speech.  A person has the right exercise the full range of 
expression until doing so impinges others' rights directly or erects 
artificial barriers to the exercise of those rights.

Artificially denying access to a newspaper creates artificial barriers to 
expression, and therefore falls outside the realm things protected as 
righteous speech.

>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?"

No, it is not, because organizing a boycott does not erect an artificial 
barrier to the exercise of one's rights.  Denying access to the newspaper 
does.

>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.

Clearly this is not aimed at a "git" such as me who is unworthy to join in 
the refined discourse that flows like an artesian spring around here, 
untainted by the bitterness of personal invective.

Good luck finding a worthy playmate.
Adios.


----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: Wed, 21 Mar 2001 07:39:08 -0500 (EST)

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




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