Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84 exptools; site ihuxn.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxn!ihnp4!ihuxn!gadfly From: gadfly@ihuxn.UUCP (Gadfly) Newsgroups: net.religion,net.legal,net.misc Subject: Re: Autodialing Falwell - a different perspective Message-ID: <1329@ihuxn.UUCP> Date: Sun, 26-Jan-86 13:08:44 EST Article-I.D.: ihuxn.1329 Posted: Sun Jan 26 13:08:44 1986 Date-Received: Sun, 26-Jan-86 20:37:01 EST References: <1225@mtuxo.UUCP> <11434@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> <633@brl-smoke.ARPA> <322@uscvax.UUCP> Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories Lines: 29 Xref: watmath net.religion:9070 net.legal:2801 net.misc:9213 -- > >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 think a lot of folks are confusing morality with manners. Fallwell's right to free speech has not been abrogated. The US Constitution gave him that right, and no superseding law is about to take it away (yet). The auto-dialer may be violating some minor phone-use laws, but the umbrage taken at his methods is much more at his violation of phone-use etiquette. The auto-dialer is not immoral; he is rude. Fortunately for us Americans, we have the right to be rude. Effective picketters are often quite surly. The legal problems arise when, as they say, push comes to shove. In which case, the shover violates the rights of the shovee in the name of some nobler cause or authority. The test of the morality of such an act is that the trangressor fully accept the responsibility for the act *and the consequences*, and not slink off into the night. -- *** *** JE MAINTIENDRAI ***** ***** ****** ****** 26 Jan 86 [7 Pluviose An CXCIV] ken perlow ***** ***** (312)979-7753 ** ** ** ** ..ihnp4!iwsl8!ken *** ***