Re: Freedom Forum report on the State of the First Amendment
Lizard writes:
At 12:55 PM 12/23/97 -0500, Colin Rafferty wrote:
Freedom of expression is not the same as freedom of oppression.
How is someone 'oppressed' by my choosing not to deal with him for some reasons, but not for other reasons? Either way, he does not get my services.
I refuse to hire you because you are black -- you are oppressed. I refuse to hire you because you're an Aquarius and my astrologer told me not to hire Aquarians -- you are not oppressed. I refuse to hire you because you're a Republican and I'm a Democrat, and I don't think we'll work well together -- you are not oppressed.
But in all cases, you are not hired.
Explain the logic of this to me.
The logic is about patterns of discrimination of society and the State acting as a social engineer to remove the patterns. It is about basic human decency, and giving a person a fighting chance. If society, in general, discriminated against people with freckles, it is likely that it would be made illegal.
(Yes, it is perfectly legal to not hire someone based on star sign, political affiliation, or having freckles.)
No human being has a right to compel service from another human being.
No majority group has a right to discriminate against a minority. You prove that you know The Truth, and I'll prove that I know The Truth.
If I do not wish to engage in trade with you, that's my right. Would you be less oppressed if I just closed up shop and refused to trade with ANYONE?
Oppression is done by a society. It can only be stopped by acting against the individuals in the society that are doing the oppressing.
The issue here is not expression, but association.
That's a good point. However, the alternate doesn't have the same rhythm: Freedom of association is not the same as freedom of oppression. -- Colin
I don't read fight censorship so I can see people flame each other about freedom of association. Thank you. -- Sameer Parekh Voice: 510-986-8770 President FAX: 510-986-8777 C2Net http://www.c2.net/ sameer@c2.net
sameer writes:
I don't read fight censorship so I can see people flame each other about freedom of association. Thank you.
I am sorry. Somebody who should know better cross-posts incendiary messages to both fight-censorship and cypherpunks. I just can't stand reading obviously idiotic messages without responding. I will try to refrain. By the way, I am not subscribed to cypherpunks, soif you have something to say, CC me. -- Colin
sameer <sameer@c2.net> writes:
I don't read fight censorship so I can see people flame each other about freedom of association. Thank you.
Hey Sameer, Is it true what people have been saying about you and the camel on the cypherpunks list? --- Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- In <ocru3bz3lrh.fsf@ml.com>, on 12/23/97 at 02:25 PM, Colin Rafferty <craffert@ml.com> said:
The logic is about patterns of discrimination of society and the State acting as a social engineer to remove the patterns.
This is the crux of the matter (and for Seamer the relevance to FC). It is *NOT* the job of the STATE to play social engineer. There is no Constitutional mandate for it and in numerous clauses and Amendments it is strictly prohibited from doing so. It is this concept that the STATE can disregard the Constitution whenever it feels like it is the reason why we have ITAR/EAR, CDA, Volentary/Mandatory Ratting systems, ECC, FCC ...etc. When you support the blatant violation of the Constitution by the government because their actions fit your political/social agenda you loose all credibility when you go to oppose them on a separate violation. This is why the so-called civil rights groups have very low credibility with many. Either we have a government which must obey the laws of the land (with the Constitution being the supreme law) or we have the current system where the law is disregarded whenever it is politically expedient. - -- - --------------------------------------------------------------- William H. Geiger III http://users.invweb.net/~whgiii Geiger Consulting Cooking With Warp 4.0 Author of E-Secure - PGP Front End for MR/2 Ice PGP & MR/2 the only way for secure e-mail. OS/2 PGP 2.6.3a at: http://users.invweb.net/~whgiii/pgpmr2.html - --------------------------------------------------------------- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3a-sha1 Charset: cp850 Comment: Registered_User_E-Secure_v1.1b1_ES000000 iQCVAwUBNKBC9I9Co1n+aLhhAQJyeAP/SCHQyP8gkuV5ogM5xydukD8pyvwvRXWE 3hYej5sxR1aaiq8iuqEFtFTfJrnyHDU5nxWwcBMUDXqh6BYQs2RSrSEUS3SMxHcA IMbohL0TYkTEV5EltMFoaJ67243SVg3cX5Wp/XHIy92L6vUEPRataH1fxw4R0gyA BTdUa6IlCzQ= =8d92 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
It is about basic human decency, and giving a person a fighting chance.
No, acts of law which require employers not to discriminate against niggers, wops, kikes or greezers, or any other ratial group infringe basic rights of association, I personally have no racist prejudices, but recognise the freedom of others to be as bigotted as they care to be. Datacomms Technologies data security Paul Bradley, Paul@fatmans.demon.co.uk Paul@crypto.uk.eu.org, Paul@cryptography.uk.eu.org Http://www.cryptography.home.ml.org/ Email for PGP public key, ID: FC76DA85 "Don`t forget to mount a scratch monkey"
On 23 Dec 1997, Colin Rafferty wrote:
Oppression is done by a society. It can only be stopped by acting against the individuals in the society that are doing the oppressing.
Well make up your mind! Is it done "by a society" or by "individuals"??? ______________________________________________________________________ Jon Galt e-mail: jongalt@pinn.net website: http://www.pinn.net/~jongalt/ PGP public key available on my website. Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner. ______________________________________________________________________
participants (6)
-
Colin Rafferty -
dlv＠bwalk.dm.com -
Jon Galt -
Paul Bradley -
sameer -
William H. Geiger III