🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <5jb7qi$g7s@portal.gmu.edu>, mshinn@osf1.gmu.edu (Michael T
Shinn) wrote:

>      Interview with Political Prisoner Charles Manson
>
>Hear Manson's own words in this rare underground video presentation.
>This uncut, uncensored, and completely candid interview with Charles
>Manson reveals his innermost thoughts.  Learn about the fear and lies
>that led to Manson's imprisonment and how he has been kept a political
>prisoner by the "justice" system.  Manson experts will be present to
>discuss his philosophy.  Manson literature and art will be distributed.
>
>Date:     Tuesday, April 22nd, 1997
>Time:     4-6pm
>Location: Front Ballroom, Sub 2
>Cost:     Free
>
>Brought to you by the George Mason Society as part of our Free Speech
>Project

Well, I think you all just blew any credibility you or the "George Mason
Society" might (and I use that term loosly) ever have had.  Manson is no
"political prisoner" any more than John Gotti, never was and never will
be.  Manson was directly responsible for the torture and murder of at
least 7 people, one of whome was pregnant.


Warning, the following section contains explicit descriptions of 7 murders
and has been encoded with ROT13 to prevent unintentional reading.  This
quote is taken from a paper located at
http://www.cris.com/~dfillmer/Manson.htm


"Gur svefg svir zheqref, yngre gb or pnyyrq gur "Gngr" zheqref, bppheerq 
va n ubhfr uvtu nobir gur pvgl bs Ybf Natryrf. Bar ivpgvz (Fgrira 
Cnerag) jnf sbhaq va uvf pne bhgfvqr gur ubhfr naq ur unq orra fubg sbhe 
gvzrf naq fgnoorq bapr. Nabgure gjb ivpgvzf (Novtnvy Sbytre naq Iblgrx 
Selxbjfxv) jrer sbhaq ba gur onpx ynja bs gur Gngr rfgngr. Pbebare'f 
ercbegf jbhyq yngre vaqvpngr gung Novtnvy unq orra fgnoorq gjragl-rvtug 
gvzrf naq Iblgrx jnf fubg gjvpr, fgehpx bire gur urnq guvegrra gvzrf naq 
fgnoorq svsgl-bar gvzrf. Gur erznvavat gjb obqvrf (Funeba (Gngr) 
Cbynafxv naq Wnl Froevat) jrer sbhaq vafvqr gur ubhfr gvrq gbtrgure ol n 
ebcr nebhaq gurve arpxf, juvpu jnf uhat bire n ensgre va gur prvyvat. 
Funeba, jub jnf rvtug zbaguf certanag ng gur gvzr, unq qvrq sebz zh
ygvcyr fgno jbhaqf gb gur purfg naq onpx, gbgnyvat fvkgrra. Wnl, jub jnf 
sbhaq jvgu Funeba, unq orra fgnoorq frira gvzrf naq fubg bapr. Ur qvrq 
bs rkfnathvangvba, juvpu vf oyrrqvat gb qrngu naq arvgure bs gur ivpgvzf 
unq npghnyyl qvrq sebz unatvat. Gur arkg gjb ivpgvzf, va jung jbhyq 
orpbzr xabja nf gur "YnOvnapn" zheqref, jrer sbhaq va n ubzr va gur Ybf 
Sryvm frpgvba bs Ybf Natryrf. Yrab naq Ebfrznel YnOvnapn jrer sbhaq 
fgnoorq gb qrngu va gurve ubzr. Ur unq orra fgnoorq zhygvcyr gvzrf naq n 
xavsr naq sbex jrer sbhaq cebgehqvat sebz uvf obql naq fur unq orra 
fgnoorq sbegl-bar gvzrf."

===================================================================
Christian Smith, Systems Manager - Instructional Development Office
George Mason University,  4400 University Drive, Fairfax VA,  22030
csmith@gmu.edu (email)    703-993-2779 (voice)   703-993-3162 (fax)
http://www.ido.gmu.edu/Chris/Index.html
Key Fingerprint: 30 07 7A 66 9C 0D 18 04  AC 2E 1C E1 EA EE 3C 44 
===================================================================
For PGP key send mail with subject: Send PGP Key

Michael T Shinn wrote:
> 
>       Interview with Political Prisoner Charles Manson
> 
> Hear Manson's own words in this rare underground video presentation.
> This uncut, uncensored, and completely candid interview with Charles
> Manson reveals his innermost thoughts.  Learn about the fear and lies
> that led to Manson's imprisonment and how he has been kept a political
> prisoner by the "justice" system.  Manson experts will be present to
> discuss his philosophy.  Manson literature and art will be distributed.
> 
> Date:     Tuesday, April 22nd, 1997
> Time:     4-6pm
> Location: Front Ballroom, Sub 2
> Cost:     Free
> 
> Brought to you by the George Mason Society as part of our Free Speech
> Project
> 
> M. Shinn
> President, George Mason Society

How many people were killed as a result of things this "political 
prisoner" said and did?

Christian Smith (csmith@gmu.edu) wrote:
: Well, I think you all just blew any credibility you or the "George Mason
: Society" might (and I use that term loosly) ever have had.  Manson is no
: "political prisoner" any more than John Gotti, never was and never will
: be.  Manson was directly responsible for the torture and murder of at
: least 7 people, one of whome was pregnant.

Oh darn.  I lost all my credibility with you.  Wow... well I guess I
better leave Mason then!  Chris, the expert on credibility has spoken -
all hope is dashed!  Life is over!

Buy a clue Chris, the supposition that Manson
is a political prisoner is an *opinion*.  And frankly, not necessary, one
that I and the GMS support - but thats not the point, we're a free speech
group.

The argument has always been made by people like you that ideas should be
presented with a *name* attached to them (I guess so you can complain
to my boss or something if you don't like my ideas) and in the marketplace
of ideas. So, we the GMS, and namely me as its President stepped up to the
plate to present ideas - so we can let the marketplace decide if these
ideas are logical and rational.    

And I applaud your efforts to counter the supposition that Manson is a
political prisoner.  We need more rationalism in this world. (Now if you
had been as forth coming with me, you might have asked *why* the GMS would
hold such a showing instead of making the hypostatic leap that this means
we are making this argument.)


M. Shinn
President, George Mason Society

In article <5jdfnl$lju@portal.gmu.edu>, mshinn@osf1.gmu.edu (Michael T
Shinn) wrote:

>Carolyn and Mike Bennett (hillary@erinet.com) wrote:
>: > Brought to you by the George Mason Society as part of our Free Speech
>: > Project
>
>: How many people were killed as a result of things this "political 
>: prisoner" said and did?
>
>Too many.  
>
>(Note this is part of our Free Speech project.  The GMS is
>*not* making the argument that Manson was a political prisoner, our guests
>are - as we always invite skeptics and critics of anyone we invite,
>generally we actively solicit a counter point when possible.)

Then you need to take a few more communications courses.  The statement
you posted made an explicit claim that Manson was a "political prisoner"
and you signed the message with your GMS affiliation and title (making an
implicit statement that you were presenting the views of the GMS).

As for you statement that:

>The argument has always been made by people like you that ideas should be
>presented with a *name* attached to them (I guess so you can complain
>to my boss or something if you don't like my ideas) and in the marketplace
>of ideas. So, we the GMS, and namely me as its President stepped up to the
>plate to present ideas - so we can let the marketplace decide if these
>ideas are logical and rational.

First off, you know next to nothing about me or my beliefs.  Let me give
you a little background for what it's worth.  I am both a social and
economic liberal.  I strongly support groups such as the EFF and the
ACLU.  My educational background includes both Political Science and
Mathematics.  I am a husband and father.  I oppose censorship in any form
including such modern examples as the CDA.  And I'll call bullshit
bullshit when I hear it.

As for complaining to your boss, why would I?  I'd rather attack your (and
your organization's) credibility (however trite Ryan may feel that word is
coming from me) right here in a public place.  But apparently GMS doesn't
support the notion of mass murderer == political prisoner.  Instead (much
like the writers for the Broadside) you simply need to learn how to
communicate in the written language.

===================================================================
Christian Smith, Systems Manager - Instructional Development Office
George Mason University,  4400 University Drive, Fairfax VA,  22030
csmith@gmu.edu (email)    703-993-2779 (voice)   703-993-3162 (fax)
http://www.ido.gmu.edu/Chris/Index.html
Key Fingerprint: 30 07 7A 66 9C 0D 18 04  AC 2E 1C E1 EA EE 3C 44 
===================================================================
For PGP key send mail with subject: Send PGP Key

Carolyn and Mike Bennett (hillary@erinet.com) wrote:
: > Brought to you by the George Mason Society as part of our Free Speech
: > Project

: How many people were killed as a result of things this "political 
: prisoner" said and did?

Too many.  

(Note this is part of our Free Speech project.  The GMS is
*not* making the argument that Manson was a political prisoner, our guests
are - as we always invite skeptics and critics of anyone we invite,
generally we actively solicit a counter point when possible.)

M. Shinn
President, George Mason Society

John M Atkinson (jatkinso@ANTISPAMgmu.edu) wrote:
: On 20 Apr 1997 16:20:05 GMT, mshinn@osf1.gmu.edu (Michael T Shinn) wrote:

: Given:That Free Speech [tm] is an absolute good and that there is no perspective
: that should be supressed or hindered from expressing itself in any way, shape,
: or form.

Well, let me start by saying that it my position that there are generally
no absolutes on this topic.  The other members of the GMS may have their
own opinions, but mine is that taking an absolute stance on the topic of
free speech, make that speech in general, is myopic at best.

So, the I would be the first to disagree with the premise that one has an
*absolute* right to speak whatever one wants.  

For instance, some forms of speech which I think a reasonable person would
agree should be prohibited, or at least fined for (yeech!) would be Libel,
Slander, the telling of national secrets that are *clearly* going to get
people killed, and child pornography.

Some other more gray area types of speech that can and should get you into
trouble would be, yelling Fire in a Crowded Movie House, so called
"fighting words" and obvious fraud.  These areas can be extremely vague
and hard to define.  So I defer to the SLAPS test when I'm not sure

If a work has:

Serious Literary, Artistic, Political or Scientific value, it doesn't
violation (God what a yarn this one is) local community standards for
decency as spelled out in specific language in the local applicable law.  

So, once we have all that in mind, I think a reasonable argument should
be to err on the side of caution when it comes to speech - to be very 
wary of arguments that stipulate that speech=action, or that we should be
extremely careful of what people "should" be allowed to say.

Anyway - thats my two cents.  And no I'm not speaking for everyone in the
GMS (If it needs to be said...) - these are my opinions.  

M. Shinn
President, George Mason Society

On 21 Apr 1997 15:18:35 GMT, mshinn@osf1.gmu.edu (Michael T Shinn) wrote:

%: Quibbles-but qualified.  Fire in a Crowded theater, let's say "Speech that
%: endangers lives" same as military secrets.  Fraud-OK, criminal activity.
%: Fighting Words, now that's the problem-how do you define them, and why are
they
%: wrong?
%
%Thats the issue, they're a gray area.  I would argue that you deserve what
%you
%get if you insite someone to fight.  I'll have to pull out my law texts
%and re-read the cases concerning the modus of fighting words.  

Well, see, my question is that if I walk up to a randomly selected person and
start screaming epithets in his face, and he decks me-that's fighting words,
right?  BUT if I put those same words on a canvass, or make it part of a
political speech, they appear to be acceptable.  

%: %Serious Literary, Artistic, Political or Scientific value, it doesn't
%: %violation (God what a yarn this one is) local community standards for
%: %decency as spelled out in specific language in the local applicable law.  
%
%: So, is a conspiracy to commit murder of SLAPS value?
%
%Whats the difference betwen a really good murder mystery and conspiracy to
%commit murder - in the eyes of the observer?  (Especially if you're not
%sure...)

Agatha Christie never actually reccomended that people carry through.

John M. Atkinson
jatkinso@gmu.edu
"The only way a man can be free is by an utter willingness to fight 
with the outright viciousness of one of Larry Niven's Kzin"
                                              -Robert Anson Heinlein

John M Atkinson (jatkinso@ANTISPAMgmu.edu) wrote:
: Well, see, my question is that if I walk up to a randomly selected person and
: start screaming epithets in his face, and he decks me-that's fighting words,
: right?  BUT if I put those same words on a canvass, or make it part of a
: political speech, they appear to be acceptable.  

I would argue that you have a right to say it - but I err on the side of
caution and don't generally believe that words, in and of themeselves, and
enough to justify violence against anotehr person.  Neverthless, I'll have
to review my texts for the specific argument regarding fighting words.  It
is my recollection that as a body of speech "fighting words" are in most
cases protected - which is why I said ti was a gray area.  (MY memory is
not perfect... perhaps someone can speak to this point, I won't be near my
texts until I get home from work)

: %Whats the difference betwen a really good murder mystery and conspiracy to
: %commit murder - in the eyes of the observer?  (Especially if you're not
: %sure...)

: Agatha Christie never actually reccomended that people carry through.

But what if I put a disclaimer on a text saying "Dont do this!" that 
totally lays out a plan to kill someone - sprinkle in some fictional
character names and scene settings - and one of my friends carries
it out?

I never actually recommended that people carry through.  Was it
conspiracy to commit murder, or protected speech under SLAPS?

John M Atkinson (jatkinso@ANTISPAMgmu.edu) wrote:
: %Some other more gray area types of speech that can and should get you into
: %trouble would be, yelling Fire in a Crowded Movie House, so called
: %"fighting words" and obvious fraud.  These areas can be extremely vague
: %and hard to define.  So I defer to the SLAPS test when I'm not sure

: Quibbles-but qualified.  Fire in a Crowded theater, let's say "Speech that
: endangers lives" same as military secrets.  Fraud-OK, criminal activity.
: Fighting Words, now that's the problem-how do you define them, and why are they
: wrong?

Thats the issue, they're a gray area.  I would argue that you deserve what
you
get if you insite someone to fight.  I'll have to pull out my law texts
and re-read the cases concerning the modus of fighting words.  

: %Serious Literary, Artistic, Political or Scientific value, it doesn't
: %violation (God what a yarn this one is) local community standards for
: %decency as spelled out in specific language in the local applicable law.  

: So, is a conspiracy to commit murder of SLAPS value?

Whats the difference betwen a really good murder mystery and conspiracy to
commit murder - in the eyes of the observer?  (Especially if you're not
sure...)

M. Shinn

(We should start a new thread...)