From: "E. ALLEN SMITH" <EALLENSMITH@ocelot.Rutgers.EDU>
Date: Tue, 20 Feb 1996 02:48:50 +0800
To: tallpaul@pipeline.com
Subject: Re: Should *WE* Sue Under CDA
Message-ID: <01I1EBV48X2UA0V4SL@mbcl.rutgers.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


From:	IN%"tallpaul@pipeline.com" 19-FEB-1996 08:49:19.72

>On a personal and emotional level I *love* the idea of watching a group of
>pro-CDA fundie christers having to sweat in court explaining how their
>support for things like incest and murder are protected under the First
>Amendment but other people's speech is not. 

	It is a rather humorous idea.

>But on a logical level, should we use (or advocate) the court system under
>CDA-related topics. 
 
>I think not. 
 
>Allen's post has great emotional appeal, but it creates at least one
>danger. 
 
>The first is the hypocrisy involved in advocating something with which we
>disagree, like asking the courts to support CDA and use CDA to punish those
>we don't like. 

	That does have its problems. I've got the same sort of dilemma in my
life; to take government funding (for science) or not, when I disapprove of
most such funding. I wind up deciding to, because otherwise the funds in
question could be spent less efficiently on science (thus further wasting
taxpayer funds) or on something even less legitimate (i.e., the Wo(S)D), given
that bureaucratic budgets tend to be decided by who uses up the most money.
	I can justify this by that one would pick a target that had done
something directly wrong: participating in the writing of a bill that violates
individual rights. In other words, pick a target that deserves it enough, and
striking back at them is justified. The problem is the old ends justify means
debate.
 
>The second is creating an Orwellian doublethink in politics where we first
>advocate something, like useing the courts. Then, when challenged (about
>hypocrisy or anything else) turn around and state that we really did not
>adovate what we so clearly did advocate or that we did not "mean" what we
>so clearly said. 
 
>Ultimately, we reinforce a form of political behavior where nobody is
>responsible for their political behavior and nobody expects to be held
>accountable for it. 
 
>Witness the behavior of people like Rep. Shroeder who voted for CDA etc.
>including the anti-abortion aspects, but does not want this to count among
>the pro-choice crowd because she didn't "really" vote for CDA etc. to get
>it to limit abortions. 

	You have a point.
	-Allen