From: Michael Lee Area: THE_OASIS To: Wind-Walker 8 Sep 92 19:20:16 Subject: Fascism U.S.A. Sent UpdReq W> Freedom of Speech is extinct in the usa W> If you feel otherwise then explain why the following are W> not examples indicating that freedomn of speech is a W> myth This is going to be easy. Think of something harder next time. W> #1: Ice-T having to withdraw "Cop-Killer" from several W> markets In the post I was quoting, the focus was on how the "dictatorship" was limiting the freedoms in this country. I disagreed. "Freedom of Speech" only has relevancy in terms of government institutions. Even then the "Freeddom" has boundry conditions (the classical "yelling Fire in a crowded theater). Now, the fact that Ice-T was "forced" (in fact, the correct term was coerced) into withdrawing the song does not impact his "Freedom of Speech." There was no prior restraint. There was no governmental action orcing Ice-T to comply with some statute. There was no goverment relevancy to this situation at all. (Although one _can_ make the case that the song had the moral equivalency of yelling Fire in a theater. It could do harm. Just ask a Cop.) W> #2: Intelligent Hoodlums have to pull "Bullet" off W> their _forthecoming_ album "Black Rage." Unfortunately (or fortunately, depending on your perspective), I'm not familiar with this situation. I would bet the ranch, however, that it was the record company that "forced" them. The government had nothing to do with it. W> The national council of Arts awarding grants to artists, W> and then pulling them because the proposed work might be W> offensive to some. This is _absolutely_ my favorite one! Niether the NEA, the FBI, or Betty Crocker for that matter, are _preventing_ the "artists" (yes, beauty is in the eye of the beholder) from doing anything! What the NEA is saying (and should say) is that we won't _fund_ work that we (i.e. the american public) doesn't like. Does anyone _force_ you to go out and by a Conway Twitty album? Are you infiging on Mr. Twitty's free speech because you won't fund his work? W> Florida trying to mandate the use on english W> exclusively, by making it the official language. Again, Florida is not telling _anyone_ what they can and cannot say in the public or private sector. What is happening is that the "business of government" is trying to spend our taxes more efficiently (yea, right). W> Florida libraries having to defend keeping 47 books on W> their shelves. Texas libraries have had 27 books W> targeted for removal. Libraries in 46 states have had W> books targetted for removal. << and note that doesn't W> include books that the library wasn't able to get due to W> budget, or other << especially other >> considerations. W> << the easiest way to force a public library to toe the W> line politically, is to slash its book budget in half W> for three years. Its a rare tlibrary that recovers from W> that sort of threat. >> W> & don't forget to look at obscenity statutes in the W> various states. Or just at federal statutes, and at W> proposed federal statutes. << ever thought you'd live W> to see the day that B Dalton, or Waldenbooks gets closed W> down, because it sells hard-core pornography === well W> under some proposed << quietly dropped, but being W> refloated >> rules virtually every book sold by those W> two chain would be , or would have the potential to W> violate proposed federal obscenity statutes? >> Again, there is no censorship. If you (or anyone else) wanted to get the book, all you have to do is go out an buy one. When the government is making consumer choices (e.g. NEA grants), then you buy what the people want. In any case, I don't think that the libraries won't let you check out the books mentioned, they just don't want them displayed where minors have access. Contrary to what people might beleive, Parents have rights also. W> Explain why the FBI should be allowed to read every The fact that the FBI reads everymessage on the Internet does not limit your free speech or mine. Write what you want. Read what you want. It's only when you intedn to "do harm" that there's a problem. (Now, I'm not going into the "correctness" of the FBI being on Internet. That's fodder for a later post. Continued on Next Post 718499927771849992777184999277718499927771849992777184999277718 From: Michael Lee Area: THE_OASIS To: Wind-Walker 8 Sep 92 19:54:34 Subject: Fascism U.S.A. Sent UpdReq W> read up on your us constitutional law. W> effectively, the president of the us can assume pure W> autocratic, dictatorial powers, with nothing to counter W> him so doing. << feminist's i use him deliberately --- W> the power establishment won't allow a female to W> president, or non-white for at least another twenty W> years, probably fourty to fifty. >> Furthermore, the W> supreme court of the us, has allready given its legal W> blessing for the president to so do. & if any president W> does so do, the only effective way to stop him will be W> by termination with extreme prejudice, of him and every W> living body within 100 kilometers of him. Baloney! There _might_ be some extreme situations where the President can assume dictatorial powers (e.g. Lincoln and the Civil War, or for that matter most any "war" to a certain extent), but there _are_ very, very, very, strong checks against this: Congress can impeach, and we can vote. There are _no_provisions for doing away with the franchise. If we did reach that point, it would be revolution. But I don't think there's even the remotest of chances of this happening. P.S. That was _such_ a nice PC touch. You know, that Feminazi B.S. 718499927771849992777184999277718499927771849992777184999277718