From: smb@research.att.com
Date: Tue, 1 Mar 94 08:40:05 PST
To: Duncan Frissell <frissell@panix.com>
Subject: Re: ditz in office
Message-ID: <9403011640.AA23727@toad.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


	 `Hillary's Ominous Quotes of the Day':

	 "AT A CERTAIN POINT, YOUR RIGHTS MUST BE ABRIDGED FOR THE PUBLIC GOOD."

Sorry, that's a statement of fact.  The interesting question is where
one draws the line.  Assume, for example, that you are a fervent believer
in some religion that requires the sacrifice of unwilling outsiders.
Should you be permitted to practice that religion?  (Note:  I said
``practice'', not ``believe in''.)  Would the anarchist liberatarian
next door to you be abridging your rights if he or she shoots back
when you come to collect some victims?

Even your own note acknowledged that rights aren't necessary absolute; you
noted, in an exculpatory context, that

	The statement might simply be her response to a question about
	convicted rapists not having to submit to an AIDS test.

As I said -- the interesting question is how and where one draws the line.