From: Sandy Sandfort <sandfort@crl.com>
Date: Thu, 15 Aug 1996 11:55:21 +0800
To: Alan Olsen <alano@teleport.com>
Subject: Re: Schlafly on crypto
In-Reply-To: <2.2.32.19960814185535.00e17344@mail.teleport.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.960814173100.22510C-100000@crl11.crl.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
                          SANDY SANDFORT
 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

C'punks,

On Wed, 14 Aug 1996, Alan Olsen wrote:

> Well, I can think of a few reasons to come to that conclusion.  
> 
> - Schlafly is the head of one of the more right-wing
> organizations in the country.  
 
Some right-wingers don't like free speech, most do.  This 
characterization is not enlightening on the question at hand.

> - She is very closly associated with the Buchanon campaign and
> the Christian coalition.  

Does Buchanan favor censorship of the Net?  If so, what leads you
to believe Schlafly shares that particular view?  This guilt by
(assumed) association is not fair nor persuasive.

> - Her organization, the Eagle Forum, distributes a couple of
> anti-porn rant tracts (http://www.eagleforum.org/users/eagle/
> public_html/misc/order.html) called _Pornography's Victims
> $4.95 (paperback) by Schlafly, ed._ 

Being against porn does not mean one is pro-censorship.  (I don't
like smoking, but I don't think it should be illegal.)  We need
something more concrete to support such an accusation.

> I know that he [Phyllis' son] is gay.  His mother seems to have
> had some problems coming to terms with the implications of alot
> of her rhetoric involving such things...

Really?  I though she very clearly has stated that she hates the
sin, not the sinner.  What evidence does Alan have that she has
had "some problems coming to terms..."?

> (She seems to confuse her religion with reality on this point.)

As does Alan.
 
> I would say there are alot of reasons to assume that Schlafly
> would try and impose her morality on the rest of the country if
> given half the chance.

Well Alan can say anything he wants, but he has given no 
*substantive* reasons to support his prejudices.  By her article
against Net censorship, Schlafly has given us at least one piece
of evidence to the contrary.

> Look at the people she chooses to associate with.

Jesus hung out with tax collectors and prostitutes.  Look at the
people he chose to associate with.  Guilt by association again?

Look folks, in this battle, "the enemy of my enemy is my friend."
We KNOW what Clinton and his gang think of our privacy and 
freedom of speech on the Net.  Let's not cut off our noses to 
spite our faces.  If Schlarly wants to lend a hand, let's not
bite it, okay?


 S a n d y

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~