Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84 exptools; site ho95e.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!houxm!ho95e!gkm
From: gkm@ho95e.UUCP (gkm)
Newsgroups: net.religion,net.legal,net.misc
Subject: Re: Autodialing Falwell - a different perspective
Message-ID: <474@ho95e.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 6-Feb-86 15:56:05 EST
Article-I.D.: ho95e.474
Posted: Thu Feb  6 15:56:05 1986
Date-Received: Fri, 7-Feb-86 21:39:48 EST
References: <1225@mtuxo.UUCP> <11434@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> <709@cylixd.UUCP> <11515@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU>
Organization: AT&T Bell Labs, Holmdel NJ
Lines: 44
Xref: watmath net.religion:9269 net.legal:2867 net.misc:9261

I thought that civil disobedience could only occur when there is a law
prohibiting some action that is being done.  Since there is no law against
dialing an 800 number any number of times I can't see why this action is
being called "civil disobedience".  I agree that arguments can be made
as to its morality.  I thint the solution to the problem is to make a 
smarter 800 system which prevents such action.
.

> 
> 
> 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

*** REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR MESSAGE ***