From: "Attila T. Hun" <attila@primenet.com>
Date: Sun, 2 Feb 1997 02:17:03 -0800 (PST)
To: cypherpunks <gbroiles@netbox.com>
Subject: Re: Libel, Times v. Sullivan
Message-ID: <199702021017.CAA16668@toad.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

on or about 970201:1452, Greg Broiles <gbroiles@netbox.com> said:

+Since we've now got Jim Bell arguing that it's obvious that a free and
+open society must tolerate anything which might be defamatory, and Jim
+Choate arguing that it's obvious that a free and open society cannot
+tolerate anything which might be defamatory,  ...

    for what it is worth, anti-defamation, Germany's anti-Holocaust 
    denial, and anti- just about anything legislation dealing with free 
    speech is of and by its very nature an abridgement of your personal 
    freedoms. If you deny one form of speech, it is easy to deny 
    another, and then another...  do you wish to march foolishly to 
    Fahrenheit 451?

    Before the current generation of government vipers and revisionists 
    remove or rewrite even more of the immortal words of history:

        "Those who deny freedom to others 
          deserve it not for themselves."
                --Abraham Lincoln

    let's look at one more famous speech on "nibbling" your rights: 

        "Let us contemplate our forefathers, and posterity, and resolve 
        to maintain the rights bequeathed to us from the former, for 
        the sake of the latter.  
  
        "Let us remember that 'if we suffer tamely a lawless attack 
        upon our liberty, we encourage it, and involve others in our 
        doom.'  It is a very serious consideration that millions yet 
        unborn may be the miserable sharers of the event."
            --Samuel Adams ("patriot, statesman..."), speech, 1771

    and:

        "The more difficult it is to interact with the government, 
        the more the government wants gun control."
            --attila

    in other words, the more they deny our inaliable right to free 
    speech, the more they need gun control before we rise against the
    usurpers of our rights.

    Now, if there ever was a liberal do-gooder, Eleanor certainly was:

        "No one can make you feel inferior without your consent." 
            --Eleanor Roosevelt

    now, does she mean what she says literally?  in other words, is
    she saying to say what you want, and she will not be harmed or 
    "feel inferior" in this case?  I can presume Eleanor could be
    offended, but is that sufficient to abridge your rights?

    Nietzsche expresses a defiant tone on first glance -no, the general 
    interpretation is absolute freedom --speech included.

        "I understand by 'freedom of Spirit' something quite definite -
            the unconditional will to say No, 
            where it is dangerous to say No."
                --Friedrich Nietzsche

    Is not the right to bear arms the same basic freedom as free 
    speech, with one limitation: improper use carries criminal 
    penalties --basically, because the act denies another his freedom.

        "The right of self-defense is the first law of nature 
        ...and when the right of the people to keep and bear arms 
        is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, 
        liberty, if not already annihilated, 
        is on the brink of destruction."
            --St. George Tucker, 
                in his edition of Blackstone's Commentaries

    did not the Magna Carta guarantee the right of free speech?  Of 
    course, there was not full suffrage at that time, but the Magna
    Carta is the basis of our common law.

    Then, let's look at another concept of freedom and a "democracy" 

        Just because a mob calls itself a government, doesn't make it     
          so.
        Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for 
          dinner.
        People who claim that money doesn't matter, are usually living 
          on someone else's money.
        Society is a mental construct, formed by those people who are 
          too insecure to handle the concept of people as individuals.

    which gets down to just what the hell did my forefathers, and maybe 
    yours, fight for in 1776 if it was not for freedom of speech and 
    assembly, the right to bear arms, to be free from unreasonable 
    search and seizure; and enjoy the protection of law? 

    if we do not pick up that fight and stop corrupt governments from 
    usurping the power of the people, we will lose all freedom. If we 
    give in on _any_ of the first 10 amendments, our Bill of Rights, we 
    are surrendering our deserved personal franchise to a usurping 
    government.  and it starts with society and government trying to 
    tell us what we can freely say. 

    I may not like what you have to say, or that you insult my 
    sensibilities or my rectitude, but I will defend your right to my 
    death so that you may do so.

    Therefore:
     
        "With heart and hand I pledge you while I load my gun again, 
        you will never be forgotten or the enemy forgiven, 
        my good comrade..."
            --Anton Szandor LaVay

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.3i
Charset: latin1
Comment: Encrypted with 2.6.3i. Requires 2.6 or later.

iQCVAwUBMvRHa704kQrCC2kFAQE9dgP8D+q2ZFytBzdgWDh+QdtunUa8nqhopHrS
OVc5yWkG+UJzcVhtRFyu5O4nhSkgzhjbiGxYUWM1ZNZwaIDehFmieCv8GG/c+Cal
0BHWha5cHqL0pEiFs/NTWAVoVGfPZl2jcikViXMRAqt8mmXmbC3bxPjBtlfnTzmB
yTZ51fvB3tU=
=aTWw
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----