Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 4.3bsd-beta 6/6/85; site ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!ucbvax!spp
From: spp@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU (Stephen P Pope)
Newsgroups: net.religion,net.legal,net.misc
Subject: Re: Autodialing Falwell - a different perspective
Message-ID: <11515@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU>
Date: Thu, 23-Jan-86 14:05:49 EST
Article-I.D.: ucbvax.11515
Posted: Thu Jan 23 14:05:49 1986
Date-Received: Fri, 24-Jan-86 22:04:16 EST
References: <1225@mtuxo.UUCP> <11434@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> <709@cylixd.UUCP>
Organization: University of California at Berkeley
Lines: 34
Xref: watmath net.religion:9013 net.legal:2780 net.misc:9194



There seems to be a couple of general misconceptions here.

One, is that Falwell's fund raising operation primarily supports
his "freedom of speech".  Actually, it's the other way around.
He uses his freedom of speech to support his fundraising.
Only a teeny fraction of what he rakes in supports the TV 
appearances etc.  He doesn't really make public how he spends
his money, but presumably it supports Moral Majority type
operations of all sorts, few of which fall under the 
first amendment.  I'm not saying the guy shouldn't be allowed 
to operate.  I'm just saying it's not a question of "freedom
of speech".

Second, is the idea that tying up his phone lines is not an
act of civil disobedience.  Civil disobedience is usually defined
as "refusing to obey laws as a means of influencing a
government".  I contend that "authority" or "institution"
can be substituted for "governement" here, and often is.
In particular, when the institution has the strong backing
of the government (subsidization in the case of Falwell).
It's clear to me this is an act of civil disobedience, and
just because you may not agree with the politics doesn't 
make it any less so.

On a related subject, does anybody remember the GOP's
organized, public effort to tie up the Democrat's 
fundraising phones during that telethon in 84?
How does this compare legally/ethically to autodialing
Falwell?  Seems offhand like a more serious offense since
it involved conspiracy.

steve