Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site mb2c.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!epsilon!mb2c!mpr
From: mpr@mb2c.UUCP (Mark Reina)
Newsgroups: net.legal
Subject: Re: Falwell put in proper place
Message-ID: <467@mb2c.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 6-Feb-86 12:45:27 EST
Article-I.D.: mb2c.467
Posted: Thu Feb  6 12:45:27 1986
Date-Received: Fri, 7-Feb-86 21:52:51 EST
References: <2900005@orstcs> <39400014@uiucdcs>
Organization: Michigan Bell, Southfield, MI
Lines: 24

> 
> >    Is it OK to harass someone over the TV networks? I find harassment
> >    by telephone and harassment by television about equivalent. So, if
> >    Mr. Falwell (to whom I could never think of as reverend) would like
> >    it if people refrained from harassing him over the phone lines, 
> >    perhaps he should quit harassing people over the television.
> 
> This is one of the most asinine remarks I've ever seen on the net (no small
> achievement).  Your warped definition of "harassment" would do Falwell proud.
> Unless Falwell has found a way to force your television to turn on and tune
> in his show, you are not "harassed" in any way by him. I'm surprised that
> you're not a member of the "Moral Majority" (or whatever he's calling it this
> week); you have a censor's mentality.
> 
> 			Scott McEwan

I concur with Scott, entirely.  First, there is little in common
between television and telephones (except the prefix). Secondly,
a skewed definition of harrassment is required.  Finally, this
skewed definition of harrassment implies television viewers have
no control over their destiny.  Next time try ESPN;  Falwell has
not made it there, yet.
                                 Mark Reina