Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site alice.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!harvard!talcott!panda!genrad!decvax!bellcore!allegra!alice!ark From: ark@alice.UUCP (Andrew Koenig) Newsgroups: net.politics Subject: Reply to Don Black Message-ID: <3516@alice.UUCP> Date: Mon, 1-Apr-85 17:03:49 EST Article-I.D.: alice.3516 Posted: Mon Apr 1 17:03:49 1985 Date-Received: Fri, 5-Apr-85 14:08:30 EST References: <1385@decwrl.UUCP> Organization: Bell Labs, Murray Hill Lines: 110 First in net.religion, and now in net.politics, you have taken mail that I sent you privately and posted it to the net without my permission. This violates a primary rule of net etiquette. I want to make it public that you have done this, so that others might think twice before sending mail to you. Let's take a look at what you originally said, what I replied, and what you replied in net.religion: >>> I also believe that anyone, no matter what his political or religious >>> beliefs, has the right to have his views heard and considered. That's >>> still contained in the Constitution, the last time I looked. >> I don't think you meant quite what you said. >> Although I do indeed have the right to say what I want, >> I do not have the right to force anyone else to listen, >> nor may I force anyone else to transmit my messages. >> Thus, I do not have the right to have my views "heard and considered," >> and that right is not guaranteed in the Constitution. >> Or did you mean something else? > What chemical is this person on? (There I go, using the tactics of the > opposition.) > I don't believe I have twisted anybody's arm to turn on their terminal > and read my material. And there's no way to force DECWRL to transmit my > material if it doesn't want to. Somebody's a little confused about facts > of life. > But this is just the kind of person that I am opposed to, those who > would crush the opposition, crush free expression, crush free choice. > This same person would slam the jail door on Ernst Zundel or provide the > match to burn a library. (as usual, your remarks have an odd number of > symbols in front of them; mine have an even number) When you made your first remark, I realized your statement could not be exactly true. In order to have your views heard and considered, there must be someone to listen and consider them. If you say you have the right to have your views heard and considered, you are really saying that you have the right to force someone to listen and consider them. So I pointed out, as politely as I could, that although you do indeed have the constitutionally guaranteed right to say what you please, your rights end there. You do not have the right to be heard, because that conflicts with others' rights not to listen. Your response is absurd. First paragraph: an ad hominem attack. Second paragraph: an irrelevancy. Third paragraph: another ad hominem attack. I point out that no one has the right to force people to listen to them and you angrily protest that you haven't been forcing people. I never said you were. I point out that no one has the right to force others to carry their messages and you angrily protest that you don't force DECWRL to transmit your material. I never said you did. In fact, what I was doing was exactly what you claimed you had the right to force me to do: hearing and considering your views. And, because I did what you say you want, in private, you call me someone who would "crush free expression, crush free choice" in public! Next, I find you did it again in net.politics: > Now how about this goodie: >>> I also believe that anyone, no matter what his political or religious >>> beliefs, has the right to have his views heard and considered. That's >>> still contained in the Constitution, the last time I looked. >> >>I don't think you meant quite what you said. >> >>Although I do indeed have the right to say what I want, >>I do not have the right to force anyone else to listen, >>nor may I force anyone else to transmit my messages. >> >>Thus, I do not have the right to have my views "heard and considered," >>and that right is not guaranteed in the Constitution. >> >>Or did you mean something else? >> >> >> --Andrew Koenig > Andy, your words speak for themselves. You're obviously confused. > I cannot "force" DECWRL to output my submissions. Nor can I "force" >any individual to read them. (Did I twist your arm to turn on you terminal >and read USENET?) I think I already replied to these comments, but it appears that if you are rebutted successfully in one forum, you will just go seek out some other audience that hasn't gotten wise yet. I invite interested readers to draw their own conclusions from this interchange.