Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site burl.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!rcj
From: rcj@burl.UUCP (Curtis Jackson)
Newsgroups: net.religion,net.legal
Subject: Re: Autodialing Falwell - a different perspective
Message-ID: <967@burl.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 20-Jan-86 09:22:32 EST
Article-I.D.: burl.967
Posted: Mon Jan 20 09:22:32 1986
Date-Received: Tue, 21-Jan-86 01:21:30 EST
References: <1225@mtuxo.UUCP> <11434@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> <487@looking.UUCP> <965@burl.UUCP> <488@looking.UUCP>
Reply-To: rcj@burl.UUCP (Curtis Jackson)
Organization: AT&T Technologies, Burlington NC
Lines: 50
Xref: watmath net.religion:8928 net.legal:2747
Summary: 

In article <488@looking.UUCP> @looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) writes:
>Say you operate an abortion clinic, and accept donations  via credit card
>on an 800 number.  A catholic man's daughter goes to your clinic and
>obtains an abortion, probably after receiving advice on the matter over
>your phone number, too.
>
>Is this catholic man justified in autodialing your number and asking his
>friends to?  He no doubt feels his daughter was pressured by you into
>this act that he considers horrible.  Personally, he feels he is in
>much the same position as the man who autodialed Falwell.
>
Ah, now here is a good counter-example -- except for one thing.  This is
not simply a cut-and-dried matter here because we are talking about, on
the one hand, someone opposing an abortion clinic (Rah! Rah! Rah! shout
the masses!), while on the other hand we have someone opposing organized
religion (Boo! Hiss! Atheist!  shout the masses!).

I do see your point, it is a good one.  "No", I would not think that the
man was justified in autodialing the clinic.  I am quite sure that there
are a lot of people (including Brad) who say, "no", the guy who autodialed
Falwell was not justified.  But the difference is, the Catholic man could
easily take the abortion clinic into court in this country on the premise
that his daughter was coerced into committing this act that was detrimental
to her mental well-being, that she was physically and emotionally traumatized,
etc. etc.  Consider an aging woman who, while in questionable mental
condition (i.e., noticeably senile) and after massive guilt-trip applications
via the tube, gives her life savings to Jerry Falwell or one of his ilk.  As
a relative who cares about her and her financial future, how far do you think
you'd get in court (if into court at all) against Falwell in this country?
Even though both were acts of "free will", one might easily argue that in
either case the protagonist was coerced via psychological pressures that she
was ill-equipped to deal with at the time?

Summation:  The Catholic man has an "easy" alternative *when compared to* the
alternative facing the Falwell autodialer phantom.  If you can work within
the system without becoming part of the system and still achieve your reform
goals, then more power to you.  If you find you cannot, then after VERY
careful consideration of the consequences some PEACEFUL protest that may or
may not be legal is never completely out of the question.  I don't agree with
a lot of these protests, but I think that they are a good way to rally people
to your cause (free publicity, break apathy, etc.), or to realize that there
aren't a whole lot of people who believe in your cause after all.

Legal Beagles:  Are there any legal precedents for the treatment of peaceful
protest and civil disobedience?
-- 

The MAD Programmer -- 919-228-3313 (Cornet 291)
alias: Curtis Jackson	...![ ihnp4 ulysses cbosgd mgnetp ]!burl!rcj
			...![ ihnp4 cbosgd akgua masscomp ]!clyde!rcj