🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <CGA1vs.JBH@world.std.com>, jcooley@world.std.com (John Cooley) writes:
|> If you read the
|> original post, you'll see that the goal of this aleged group "REAL MEN" in 
|> this action, are seeking to have Dice-man silenced by pressuring the owner
|> of the Comedy Connection.  This is very similar to Church groups deciding
|> which books are going to be banned from the school library.

Um, no, it isn't.  The Comedy Connection is not an educational institution,
nor is it funded by our tax dollars.  It is a private institution, any
"pressuring [its] owner" through peaceful protest is a right granted to every
American.  The Comedy Connection can decide, in response to those protests, to
cancel the Clay performance if they think that the opposition to it is
significant enough to hurt their business.

On the other hand, school libraries (assuming that you are talking about
public school library) are paid for by taxes and run by the government.  They
are therefore FORBIDDEN BY THE CONSTITUTION from violating free-speech rights
-- after all, the right to free speech is all about the GOVERNMENT not being
able to prevent people from speaking.  Therefore, school libraries can't,
Constitutionally, remove a book from their shelves just because some people in
a Church group don't like it, because such an action would stifle free speech.

|> I have not
|> problem with this group "REAL MEN" being opposed to what Dice-man says; I do
|> have a concern when the accepted social action is to have him silenced.

So you're saying that they can be opposed to what he says as long as they
don't make a fuss about it?  Or that they're allowed to make a fuss about it,
as long as that fuss doesn't include telling The Comedy Connection that they
won't patronize it because Clay performs there?  Or that they're allowed to
make a fuss about it as long as they don't do so in front of The Comedy
Connection?

"We don't think you should allow Clay to perform in your club," is speech. 
"We are not going to patronize your club if you allow Clay to perform in it,"
is speech.  "We are going to picket your club and try to get our message out
to other people and get them not to go," is speech.  Perhaps all of these are
unpopular in that YOU don't like them, but they're still speech, and they're
just as protected by the Constitution as what Clay has to say.

What EXACTLY are you proposing?  Concrete, in real terms, what do you think
should be done in this case?  Do you think that REAL MEN should not be allowed
to protest?  Should not be allowed to picket?  Should not be allowed to post
to the Usenet about Clay?

If you don't think any of these things, and I suspect you don't, then what is
the point of your postings in this thread?  "`Nyah, nyah, I don't like what
REAL MEN is saying!'?"  That's all it seems to me.

I have AGAIN cross-posted to alt.society.civil-liberty and directed followups
there.

-- 
Jonathan Kamens | OpenVision Technologies, Inc. | jik@security.ov.com