Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 4.3bsd-beta 6/6/85; site ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Path: utzoo!lsuc!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!ucbvax!brahms!desj
From: desj@brahms.BERKELEY.EDU (David desJardins)
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Re: Censorship in Canada, Freedom of Speech
Message-ID: <12611@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU>
Date: Sun, 23-Mar-86 22:52:08 EST
Article-I.D.: ucbvax.12611
Posted: Sun Mar 23 22:52:08 1986
Date-Received: Wed, 26-Mar-86 23:09:01 EST
References: <824@alberta.UUCP> <6807@cca.UUCP>
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Reply-To: desj@brahms.UUCP (David desJardins)
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
Lines: 24

In article <6807@cca.UUCP> g-rh@cca.UUCP (Richard Harter) writes:
>Now if Z were attacking me as an individual, I would have,
>in principle, recourse.  I could sue him, or I could get an
>injunction.  I note as a practical matter that I might not
>be able to do this; if I were poor and ignorant and Z were
>wealthy I might not be able to afford the associated legal
>costs.
>
>It has been said that freedom of speech is paramount, that
>in a free interchange of ideas lies will be exposed for what
>they are.  I submit that this is not the issue.  The issue
>is one of recourse.  If you defame me as an individual, I
>have recourse.  If Zundel had attacked an individual in the
>way that he attacked the Jews, that individual would have
>had recourse.  But when someone attacks a group, where is
>the recourse?

   I agree to this extent:  if it is reasonable for an individual
to have recourse then it is reasonable for the group to have recourse.
But they are both censorship, and I agree with neither.
   You do make a good point against those who claim that they support
laws protecting individuals but not protecting groups...

   -- David desJardins