From: Gerald Del Campo Area: THE_OASIS To: Michael Lee 11 Sep 92 19:39:38 Subject: Re: Fascism U.S.A. UpdReq In a message dated 08 Sep 92 19:20:16, The Mule wrote: 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. TM> This is _absolutely_ my favorite one! Niether the NEA, the FBI, or TM> Betty Crocker for that matter, are _preventing_ the "artists" (yes, TM> beauty is in the eye of the beholder) from doing anything! What the TM> NEA is saying (and should say) is that we won't _fund_ work that we TM> (i.e. the american public) doesn't like. Does anyone _force_ you to TM> go out and by a Conway Twitty album? Are you infiging on Mr. TM> Twitty's free speech because you won't fund his work? What do you mean the American public? There is a butt for every seat; no matter how bad YOU think something is, there is sure to be some one in the millions of people in the USA who likes it. As long as there is ONE individual who might like it they should be funded. It's not like the .01 cent that comes out of our pockets for these funds are going to be more obscene than the amount of tax money we spend on the "war on drugs", or the military, etc. It is a farce. A True democracy looks out for the best interest of the INDIVIDUAL. This "majority rules" shit is for slaves. Love is the Law. Gerald ... RPSTOVAL OASIS: Free your mind; your ass will follow. 718499927771849992777184999277718499927771849992777184999277718 From: Turbator Area: THE_OASIS To: Gerald Del Campo 12 Sep 92 09:41:06 Subject: Re: Fascism U.S.A. UpdReq BRAVO! AUTHOR! AUTHOR! Thanks, now I don't have to spend an hour (at 10 wpm) typing. 718499927771849992777184999277718499927771849992777184999277718 From: Wind-Walker Area: THE_OASIS To: Michael Lee 10 Sep 92 18:28:18 Subject: Fascism U.S.A. UpdReq quoting MICHAEL LEE To: WIND-WALKER ___------------------------------------------------------------------------ ML}>and the Civil War, or for that matter most any "war" to a ML}>certain extent), but there _are_ very, very, very, strong ML}>checks against this: Congress ML}>can impeach, and we can vote. There are _no_provisions for Nixon proved that congress cannot impeach a president. ML}>doing away with the franchise. If we did reach that point, Do we really have the option of voting for a candidate of our choice? Have you looked at the legal obstacles of getting your name on the ballot sheet lately? Have you hired an attorney recently? If so, then figure what the billing for $K hours is, and figure on that as your minimum legal expense for getting on the ballot. << the sole exceptions being if you run as a ripocrat. >> ML}>it would be revolution. But I don't think there's even the ML}>remotest of chances of this happening. actually, the supreme court has ruled that nothing can overrule any executive order. Not the the supremem court, not congress, not anything at all. And, furthermore, a presidential order can be << as usually is >> issued simply upon the president's whim. & i think that there is a very frightning possibility of it being used more and more as a weapon. & it will be done with the approval of all of those sheep that vote ripocrat. << if they don't deamnd it. >> ML}>P.S. That was _such_ a nice PC touch. You know, that Feminazi B.S. PC. that was anything but PC. Neither was it Feminazi their nightmare perhaps. Love Is The Law, Wind-Walker * SLMR 2.1a * CRUISING: 19200bps modem and 0.5bps fingers! 718499927771849992777184999277718499927771849992777184999277718 From: Wind-Walker Area: THE_OASIS To: Michael Lee 10 Sep 92 18:29:20 Subject: Fascism U.S.A. UpdReq quoting From: MICHAEL LEE To: WIND-WALKER ___------------------------------------------------------------------------ ML}>Now, the fact that Ice-T was "forced" (in fact, the correct term was coerced ML}>into withdrawing the song does not impact his "Freedom of ML}>Speech." There was no prior restraint. There was no ML}>governmental action orcing Ice-T to comply with some ML}>statute. There was no goverment relevancy to this no governmental relevancy. since there are half a dozen police forces that want to arrest him for inflammatory speech. & only because of the words of that song, a song which depicts life as viewed by members of the afro-american sub-culture. << a fact immediatly appreciated by those men in blue who exist to use their guns as often as possible. >> ML}>the song had the moral equivalency of yelling Fire in a ML}>theater. It could do harm. Just ask a Cop.) << it fdoes harm to cops, only because cops started the war. >> ML}> W> #2: Intelligent Hoodlums have to pull "Bullet" off ML}> W> their _forthecoming_ album "Black Rage." ML}>Unfortunately (or fortunately, depending on your ML}>perspective), I'm not familiar with this situation. I ML}>would bet the ranch, however, that it was the record ML}>company that "forced" them. The government had nothing to ML}>do with it. the record company pulled it at the request of variouus national forces. If they left it on, the company would ahve been racked over the coals. This is another case of combined force used to prevent another view of the frustrations of afro-americans, and their rage at a system which is designed to keep them poverty struck and slaves for ever and ever. ML}> W> The national council of Arts awarding grants to artists, ML}>This is _absolutely_ my favorite one! Niether the NEA, the ML}>Twitty's free speech because you won't fund his work? if a private individual writes a contract with somebody, and then, after the contract is signed, decides not to honour the contract, the usual solution is for a lot more money being paid by the person who broke the contract to the other, injured party. However, the national council of arts can't be sued for breech of contract. But the artist is out of the funding s/he had been committed to, and has payments to make based upon the reasonable expectation that the grant, which had been promised, was forthcoming. & if an artist does try to exhibit his/her work, after it becomes known that s/he was turned down for a grant, the odds of a venue willing to display his/her works drop considerably. ML}> W> Florida trying to mandate the use on english ML}> W> exclusively, by making it the official language. ML}>Again, Florida is not telling _anyone_ what they can and ML}>cannot say in the public or private sector. What is by mandating an official language, they are stating that any and all contracts that are not in this language will not even be considered as such. Secondly, they are implying that if you do not use this official language, you are hiding something. ML}> W> Florida libraries having to defend keeping 47 books on ML}> W> their shelves. Texas libraries have had 27 books ML}> W> targeted for removal. Libraries in 46 states have had ML}> W> that sort of threat. >> ML}> W> & don't forget to look at obscenity statutes in the ML}> W> various states. Or just at federal statutes, and at ML}> W> proposed federal statutes. << ever thought you'd live ML}>Again, there is no censorship. If you (or anyone else) ML}>wanted to get the book, all you have to do is go out an buy ML}>one. When the government is making consumer choices (e.g. ML}>NEA grants), then you buy what the people want. In any ML}>case, I don't think that the libraries won't let you check ML}>out the books mentioned, they just don't want them ML}>displayed where minors have access. Contrary to what ML}>people might beleive, Parents have rights also. you may not want to call it censorship, but if having a copy of the Bible is a violation of propsed federal statutes than what do you call it? << to take a very plausible example, under proposed federal legislation. >> As far as the national council of arts goes, that might be a consumer choice. Consider the function of Art? part of it is to make one view life in a different perspective. maybe more critically, maybe more idealistic, maybe more sane. Every artist tries to convey his/her ideas upon the medium. Sometimes those ideas translate well, othertimes they fall flat. Sometimes the ideas offend, other times they don't. But when a person who is offended manages to cut off part of the livlihood of the one who creates the art, then you are in effect, imposing a degree of censorship upon the artist --- self-censorship. The worst kind of censorship according to Andre P. Brink. ML}> W> Explain why the FBI should be allowed to read every ML}>The fact that the FBI reads everymessage on the Internet ML}>does not limit your free speech or mine. Write what you ML}>want. Read what you want. It's only when you intedn to ML}>"do harm" that there's a problem. (Now, I'm not going into Except that the FBI read your mail, prior to any possible criminal activity. Generally speeking that would be called unreasonable search and seizure. As such, it serves as an attempt at limiting freedom of speech, by attempting to minimise the ideas of those who oppose whatever the current aims of the FBI, or its allies are. Love Is The Law, Love Under Will. Wind-Walker * SLMR 2.1a * Crush Unicorns under my heels to frighten away ... 718499927771849992777184999277718499927771849992777184999277718