Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site uscvax.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!mit-eddie!genrad!decvax!ittatc!dcdwest!sdcsvax!sdcrdcf!uscvax!kurtzman From: kurtzman@uscvax.UUCP (Stephen Kurtzman) Newsgroups: net.religion,net.legal,net.misc Subject: Re: Autodialing Falwell - a different perspective Message-ID: <322@uscvax.UUCP> Date: Thu, 23-Jan-86 17:06:38 EST Article-I.D.: uscvax.322 Posted: Thu Jan 23 17:06:38 1986 Date-Received: Sun, 26-Jan-86 04:01:58 EST References: <1225@mtuxo.UUCP> <11434@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> <633@brl-smoke.ARPA> Reply-To: kurtzman@usc-cse.UUCP (Stephen Kurtzman) Organization: CS&CE Depts, U.S.C., Los Angeles, CA Lines: 43 Xref: watmath net.religion:9033 net.legal:2791 net.misc:9207 In article <633@brl-smoke.ARPA> ron@brl-smoke.ARPA (Ron Natalie ) writes: >There is a fine line here. You claim that this is "non-violent >and does not hurt anyone" but that claim is far from true. You >are hurting Falwell. Causing him not only not to receive money >but incurring him cost for answering the calls. The idea behind non-violent protest is to not inflict direct physical harm. I believe this is the spirit in which the person made the claim that auto-dialing Falwell is not hurting anyone. People against Falwell might conclude that auto-dialing prevents harm (both monetary and emotional) from befalling those who might otherwise have been able to call. As for incurring Falwell costs: Falwell is the one advertising his 800 number and asking for people to call. I wonder if any of the people answering the phones ever said "Please do not call again." Unless this was done, has the legal definition of harrassment by phone been met? >Martin Luther King would roll in his grave about your idea of non-violence >here. How do you distinguish between picket lines that prevent a business from recieving customers in person, and autodialing (phone picketing) which prevents a business (Falwell's money organization) from recieving customers by phone. There is an analogy here (albeit a poor one). It seems the only laws that the autodialer broke are laws prohibiting harrassment by phone -- he did not violate Falwell's freedom of speech. >> 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. > >Great, I think that the Negro race is an abomination. I have a whole >bunch of good ol' boys in white sheets and I feel we should that good >ol' civil disobedience to kill all them there niggers. No, the whole point of civil disobedience is that society allows people enough personal freedom to break the law and go to jail as a protest action. Sometimes charges are dropped (usually after the person has been in jail for a few hours) but this is not always the case. Whether the person is charged with a crime depends on the protest action, the thing being protested, and the people involved.