[Re: Microsoft Trial Judge Based His Break-Up "Remedy" On Flawed Theory, Not Facts]
LUIS VILDOSOLA
lvild at usa.net
Tue Feb 27 20:38:42 PST 2001
Your last paragraph is a little too complicated for me Jim,
I'm interested in what you have to say but please break it
down for me.
Jim Choate <ravage at ssz.com> wrote:
>
>
> On 27 Feb 2001, LUIS VILDOSOLA wrote:
>
> > Relating how code can infringe on someone else's rights will
> > be an abstract argument.
>
> Not at all, code itself can NEVER infringe anothers right, UNLESS it's
> executed (acted upon).
>
> Speech in and of itself is powerful because of its two characteristics,
>
> - It's harmless and does nothing in and of itself.
>
> - It motivates peoples imagination to act.
>
> It is the second point that ALL regulation of speech, expression, press,
> distribution, etc. exists for.
>
> Fundamentaly all government regulation of speech is nothing more than a
> covert attempt to manage your consequent behaviour. It is not the speech
> but what others may do with it. It is clear the person emitting the speech
> has no control over the person receiving the speech. But we can't control
> the second party until it's too late. So we try to control the first
> party. Further, if we accept the premise that the first party is
> responsible for the acts of the second party, then what of the unmentioned
> parties acting on the first party? And if we claim the first party is
> acting of their own free will then what character of the second party is
> our litmus test? What aspect of the relationship between the first and
second
> parties is missing in the relationship between the first and unnamed
> parties that relieves the unnamed parties of responsibility for the acts
> of the first party? And isn't the regulation of PREVIOUS speech by such a
> unnamed party also proof that the first party isn't acting of their own
> free will? Isn't the fact that this unnamed party removed the potential
> good from banned speech from the situation and thus itself participated in
> the affront? And because they did so with forethought doesnt' this
> compound their part?
>
> ____________________________________________________________________
>
> Before a larger group can see the virtue of an idea, a
> smaller group must first understand it.
>
> "Stranger Suns"
> George Zebrowski
>
> The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate
> Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage at ssz.com
> www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087
> -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'-
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________________________
Get free email and a permanent address at http://www.netaddress.com/?N=1
More information about the Testlist
mailing list