Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!bellcore!decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!think!harvard!seismo!lll-crg!qantel!ptsfa!aum!freed
From: freed@aum.UUCP (Erik Freed)
Newsgroups: net.misc
Subject: Re: Autodialing Falwell - a different perspective
Message-ID: <427@aum.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 18-Jan-86 12:18:33 EST
Article-I.D.: aum.427
Posted: Sat Jan 18 12:18:33 1986
Date-Received: Mon, 20-Jan-86 05:55:20 EST
References: <1225@mtuxo.UUCP> <11434@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU>
Organization: The Aurora Systems Bunch
Lines: 49

> > I cannot find words to express how senseless I think this auto-dialing
> > prank is.  A man who supposedly supports the American Civil Liberties Union
> > is performing illegal acts to suppress Jerry Falwell's right to freedom of
> > etc.
> > Is this the kind of democracy he wants to live in ?
> > 
> > 		Ken Cochran		mtuxo!kwmc
> 
> Have you ever heard of "civil disobedience" Ken?  This is where
> an individual or group of concerned citizens acts illegally,
> but non-violently and without hurting anyone, to obstruct 
> the activities of an oppressive and harmful institution or
> authority.

You are hiding behind a rather powerful buzz-word. I think that most of the
reasonable examples of civil disobedience were based on a last resort measure
to thwart major injustice (such as draft dodging) Your definition includes too 
large a spectrum of activity.  If the moral majority started auto dialing the
abortion clinics help lines would this be justified? Assuming that this is a 
political battle, you are simply defining a political methodology of harassment.
This is a sure way to lose all credibility.

>     Civil disobedience is an important part of democracy.
> You may not agree with the politics of harrassing Falwell,
> but recall he advocates all sorts of violent things
> such as abortion clinic bombings.  Defending his
> "freedom of speech" has little to due with his fund-raising
> activies which, of course, support all sorts of
> arch-conservative exploits.
>     You may not agree with the above viewpoint, but if you
> accept that a large number of people share it, then maybe
> you can accept that this autodialing business is not a 
> senseless attack on democracy.
>     The whole point of civil disobedience is that society
> allows enough personal freedom that people can break the
> law, and will do it if they have a good enough reason.

Where do you personally draw the line as to what constitutes a `good' reason?
I think that you are militarizing for what is perhaps is a reasonable battle, 
(I have no love for Falwell) but if you really want to advocate harassment
as a means to an end (in this case), I think that you have lost your 
perspective.  There is an awfully fine line between anarchy and civil 
disobedience, and you are stomping all over that line.
-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                           Erik James Freed
			   Aurora Systems
			   San Francisco, CA
			   {dual,ptsfa}!aum!freed