Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!rutgers!bellcore!texbell!sugar!ficc!jeffd
From: jeffd@ficc.uu.net (jeff daiell)
Newsgroups: news.misc
Subject: Re: Freedom of hate
Summary: Constitutional comments
Message-ID: <3941@ficc.uu.net>
Date: 21 Apr 89 19:47:28 GMT
References: <14130@gryphon.COM> <8132@chinet.chi.il.us> <1216@frog.UUCP> <8257@chinet.chi.il.us>
Organization: Ferranti International Controls
Lines: 85

In article <8257@chinet.chi.il.us>, patrick@chinet.chi.il.us (Patrick A. Townson) writes:
> In article <555@cvman.UUCP> gdelong@cvman.UUCP (Gary Delong) writes:
> >
> >"The Congress shall make no law ...."
> >
> >Doesn't say anything about any other government agency or individual.
> 
> The rules and regulations of government agencies are considered to be the
> law. The establishment of the agency by Congress or the Executive is 
> sufficient to put the 'force of law' behind the rules of the agency. Do
> you honestly believe there is an actual law in the United States Code
> somewhere validating every single rule of the Internal Revenue Service?
> Do you believe you could avoid the regulations of the IRS by claiming
> there is no actual law on the books?

Perhaps not.  But there are times when the implementation of a basic
law is so outrageous that redress is possible.  Case in point: some
time back, Congress passed a law prohibiting "frivolous" tax returns --
their word for returns citing the Federal Constitution as a reason
for not paying tribute money to the Fedscists.  A woman filed a
return PROPERLY FILLED OUT and WITH A CHECK FOR THE AMOUNT REQUIRED.
She included in the envelope a letter asking how much of her
tax money went to the military.  Despite the fact that her tax form
was properly completed, and the required funds enclosed, the Income
Robbery Syndicate fined her for filing a frivolous return.  The
ACLU took her case and she won, and Congress has since rewritten
the law to rein in the more repressive tendencies of the IRS in this
particular area.

> >What do you think most "contempt of court" charges are all about? Someone
> >said something the judge didn't like.
> >If you really think we have "Free Speech" tell a judge in court, "I feel
> >this court is a joke and the biggest laugh is behind the bench."  Even
> >if it's true you feel that way, you'll get to see a jail cell.
> 
> 
> This could be another example of the types of illegal speech I was 
> requested to post yesterday. The right of the public and the government
> to an unbiased forum, conducted with decorum for the purpose of hearing
> and ajudicating grievances with each other is superior to the right of
> 'free speech' in that place and at that time. 

Contempt of course can be abused incredibly.  There have been cases
where judges cited county commissioners for refusing to raise
judges' pay, or refusing to increase a court system's operating
budget.  And don't forget some of the bizarre contempt rulings
by Judge Hoffman during the Chicago 7 trial -- rulings so, uh,
contemptible, that even so rightwingers were scandalized.

And there was recently a judge citing attorneys for contempt for
not addressing each other as "Doctor".  And while having a
terminal degree brings with it, in academia, the privilege of
being so addressed, I think that ruling was proposterous.
> 
> Neither does your right to free speech give you the authority to lie under
> oath at any time. And just as you may not address an officer of the court
> in a disrespectful manner, you may not address members of Congress in a
> disprepectful manner while that body is in session. Disrepect not only
> includes acts of commission (lies, laughter, mocking) but acts of omission
> as well (failure to appear when requested).

It should be noted that nowhere in the Federal Constitution is
Congress given subpoena authority.  Indeed, nowhere in the
Constitution is the prosecution in a Federal case given such 
authority -- and remember, the whole basis of American
political philosophy is that Government has *only* those
privileges specifically granted it.

But let's get back to the case at Penn State.  A forum was set
up, open to a certain class of students.  One member of that 
class was apparently barred from that forum solely because of
the content of his speech.  The argument originally was: is that
censorship?  If so, is it permissible?

Well -- yes and no!

For Texas Independence,

Jeff Daiell

-- 
       "The hottest places in Hell are reserved for those 
   who, in times of moral crisis, preserved their neutrality."

                                        -- Dante