Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!cs.utexas.edu!usc!brutus.cs.uiuc.edu!unix.cis.pitt.edu!rhg2
From: rhg2@unix.cis.pitt.edu (Rich  Graham)
Newsgroups: alt.individualism
Subject: Re: Kennedy wasn't the first.
Message-ID: <21642@unix.cis.pitt.edu>
Date: 16 Jan 90 15:35:04 GMT
References: <89348.161937BROWN@NCSUVM.BITNET. <1372@becker.UUCP. <461@smcnet.UUCP. <51@zds-ux.UUCP. <467@smcnet.UUCP. <67@zds-ux.UU <2540@odin.SGI.COM. <90008.000413HERSCH@AUVM.BITNET. <1856@osc.COM>
Reply-To: rhg2@unix.cis.pitt.edu (Rich  Graham)
Organization: Univ. of Pittsburgh, Comp & Info Services
Lines: 44

In article <1856@osc.COM> tma@osc.UUCP (Tim Atkins) writes:
>They can be a communist. They have the right to make films (as long as 
>no one is coerced to provide the means).  Similarly, others have the 
>right:
>	1) to seek out knowledge of and expose to the public those who are
>	   communist;
>	2) to not deal with or in any way aid the communists.
>

This reminds me of the econmic pressure = censorship debate that springs
up every time some group organizes a ban on advertizers of an
"offensive" tv program.

Sure, they have the "right" to do the above, and this is an unfortunate
consequence of protecting people's rights.  There is nothing forcing the
holders of these rights to wield them in a wise, prudent manner.  A
black man can open a business in a white neighborhood, but the whites
still have the "right" not to shop there.  This doesn't make it a wise
or beneficial thing to do, but they DO have the right, don't they?

So while no LEGAL persecution of political beliefs (in the case of the 
HUAC), or racial discrimination (in the case of the black business man),
or censorship (in the case of the ban) takes place, all three exist
EFFECTIVELY.

Makes you wonder, though, what would have happened to the individuals
"excersizing their rights (1 and 2 above)" if a 1960's-style Civil
Rights Act was around for them.  I mean, take your scenerio above and
turn the clock back to the mid 1960's.  Then substitute "blacks" for
"communists" and "racists" for "others".  Maybe justice wasn't quite as
blind as you think it was.

At any rate, I think a big part of the "why shouldn't they be communists"
question was "why are you so doggone happy to see the communists
persecuted."  You do seem awfully satisfied with the fact that the
destruction of these people's careers, reputations, and lives is
protected by the Constitution.  Are you similarly pleased when the
victims of these rights are blacks or homosexuals or jews or etc.?


-- 
Richard H. Graham
University of Pittsburgh - CIS
rhg2@unix.cis.pitt.edu