NetNews Usenet Archive 1993 #3/NN_1993_3.iso/spool/talk/abortion/58109

Internet Message Format | 1993-01-27 | 5.7 KB

Xref: sparky talk.abortion:58109 talk.politics.misc:70000 talk.religion.misc:27659 misc.legal:23384
Path: sparky!uunet!digex.com!intercon!udel!bogus.sura.net!howland.reston.ans.net!usc!sdd.hp.com!saimiri.primate.wisc.edu!copper!mercury.cair.du.edu!mnemosyne.cs.du.edu!usenet
From: [e-mail] (The_Doge)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc,talk.religion.misc,misc.legal
Subject: Re: Supreme Court Upholds Freedom of Speech
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 26 Jan 93 15:14:08 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Sender: The_Doge
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Lines: 89
X-Disclaimer: Nyx is a public access Unix system run by the University
    of Denver for the Denver community.  The University has neither
    control over nor responsibility for the opinions of users.

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Clayton Cramer) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (The_Doge) writes:
>> In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Clayton Cramer) writes:
>> >In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (The_Doge) writes:
>> >> In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Clayton Cramer) writes:
>> >> >In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Brian Kendig) writes:
># ## #Even those of us who are pro-choice are pleased at the Supreme Court's
>#      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
># ## #decision.
># ##     I wasn't aware that you had been elected spokesman for the pro-choice
># ## contingent on Usenet, Mr. Cramer.  Based on what you have posted here, you
># ## certainly don't represent *my* views on the matter.
># #
># #Did I say that I spoke for you?  Of course.  Work on your reading
># #skills.
>#     That was certainly uncalled-for.  The passage I highlighted clearly
># implies that you claimed to speak for pro-choice folks in general.  If you
>
>It doesn't imply that to me.  Work on your reading skills.
>
    "Impenetrability, that's what I say", to quote Mr. Dumpty in "Alice
in Wonderland".  Let's regard it as a concession that you were speaking only
for yourself, despite the unusual phrasing, and move on.
[...]
>#     The point is not the adequacy of state and local laws, but the ability
># and/or willingness of state and/or local officials to enforce those laws.
># When the Klan act was passed, it was already illegal to commit murder and
># assault.  The problem was that many local law-enforcement officials were
># willing to turn the other way when the victims were members of a group they
># disliked -- recently-enfranchised blacks, in this case.
>
>Yup.  Not the problem here.
    I beg your pardon?  It's precisely because this *was* the problem in
many cases that the law was employed.
>
>#     In the case of some of ORs actions (vandalism, assault, and so
># on), the law was invoked not because these activities weren't illegal (they
># obviously were), but because local law-enforcement organizations either
># couldn't or wouldn't enforce them.
>#     In some cases, they simply lacked the resources to cope with a flood
># of out-of-towners blocking doors and grabbing clinic patients.  I believe,
># in fact, that you'll find public statements by anti-abortion groups to the
># effect that their intention was to shut down entire criminal justice systems
># in these smaller towns.  In other cases, sympathetic law-enforcement officials
>
>You mean, like the way liberals did it in Alameda County during the
>Gulf War?
>
    What does another groups lawless behavior have to do with ORs lawless
behavior?  Have I, at any point, stated or implied that disragard for the
rights of other citizens was the exclusive property of right-wing activists?
    BTW, just what group was this in Alameda County and what, exactly,
did they do?  I ask since I make a distinction between liberal and radical
lefitst politics, although you may not with to.

># simply looked the other way while anti-abortion groups violated the laws said
># officials had been hired to enforce.
>
>I recall that the Syracuse Police Chief expressed his agreement with
>O.R., but also made it clear that the laws would be enforced.
>
    Not having heard that person's acutal statements, I can't comment.  In
any case, one cooperative police chief does not a trend make, to employ a bit
of archaic phrasing.
    The point, which you have not refuted, is that in many jurisdictions
legal helath clinics face threats and damage from a nationally-organized group,
and local law-enforcement is either unable or unwilling to protect the citizens
who operate and use said clinics.
    Until the recent Supreme Court decision, the Klan Act provided a means
by which citizens might petition the Federal government for protection when
local and/or state governments could not or would not protect them from
law-breakers.  It will now be necessary to either amend that act or pass a new
one.
    BTW, this takes the debate out of the judicial arena and into the
legislative one, which (according to you conservatives) is the proper place for
it anyway.
[Cramer says liberals don't defend free speech; I say they do.  Stalemate.]
>
>Odd.  But the other student that was regularly ragging on the professor
>about this, in defense of unlimited free speech and freedom of the press,
>described herself as a conservative.
>--
    Riddle me this, then:  how would you describe the political orientation
of national administrations that have been the most zealous in their attempts
to censor erotica in all media?  How, for that matter, would you describe
Ed Meese's politics?
    And I still say this last meta-discussion belongs in alt.censorship.

The_Doge