Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site ecn-pc.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxn!ihnp4!inuxc!pur-ee!ecn-pc!wdm
From: wdm@ecn-pc.UUCP (Tex)
Newsgroups: net.religion,net.legal,net.misc
Subject: Re: Autodialing Falwell - a different perspective
Message-ID: <463@ecn-pc.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 28-Jan-86 11:49:12 EST
Article-I.D.: ecn-pc.463
Posted: Tue Jan 28 11:49:12 1986
Date-Received: Thu, 30-Jan-86 00:40:55 EST
References: <1225@mtuxo.UUCP> <11434@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> <633@brl-smoke.ARPA> <322@uscvax.UUCP> <1329@ihuxn.UUCP>
Reply-To: wdm@ecn-pc.UUCP (Tex)
Organization: Cybotech Product Development Laboratory
Lines: 61
Xref: watmath net.religion:9090 net.legal:2817 net.misc:9221
Summary: 

In article <1329@ihuxn.UUCP> gadfly@ihuxn.UUCP (Gadfly) 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...

    According to whom?  If you read Ghandi, it is imperative that no one
    come to physical harm as a result of a protest.  On the other hand if
    a non-violent protest is any protest where no one is caused direct
    physical harm, then I think I will torch an empty building here on
    campus next time there is a tuition increase.  Surely no one will
    object to this obviously non-violent protest.

>I think a lot of folks are confusing morality with manners.  Fallwell's
>right to free speech has not been abrogated.  

    Hmmmmmmm, let's see if I understand you:  Falwell put the WATS lines in
    so that he could spread his message.  Autodialer repeatedly calls
    the number, just to prevent the line from being used in the manner in
    which it was intended - to spread the Gospel according to Jerry.  It is
    Falwell's right to spread his message as he sees fit.  This right is 
    guaranteed under the First Amendment.  But his phone lines are tied up,
    so he can't to it.

    So, Autodialer IS preventing Falwell from exercising his right to
    free speech.

>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.  

     Agreed that the autodialer is probably violating phone-use laws, but 
     that certainly is not the extent of it.  If I illegally carry around
     a handgun and then kill someone with it, I don't think it would be 
     very effective to claim that my only crime was to carry around 
     a handgun illegally.

>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.  

     Right, but in this case, push came to shove when Autodialer prevented
     Falwell from using his guaranteed freedoms.

>ken perlow

     .signature file trimmed down to make the message short, not to infringe
     upon your freedom  of expression.


    bill