tan@ihlpg.UUCP (Bill Tanenbaum) (02/19/86)
> > [Me] > > There you go again, Tim. There is absolutely no relation between the > > situations in the U. S. and the Soviet Union. Neither the U. S. > > government, nor state or local governments, have attempted to curtail > > your rights to distribute literature. The only question is whether > > the owner of private property should be able to outlaw the distribution of > > literature (political or otherwise) on their property. My opinion is that, > > with only a few exceptions, they can. -------- > [Tim Sevener] > The US government most certainly *is* curtailing my right to distribute > literature when its police authority is used to prevent my > exercise of that right. -------- NO! NO! NO! The local police are acting on a complaint of the owner of the private property. What does this have to do with the US govt? Also, the police do not have the power to decide the mall is a public thoroughfare. Only the legislatures or courts can do that. Prior to the court ruling, the police would be remiss in not arresting you for tresspass on complaint of the mall owner. -------- > Just as the governmental authorities in the > past used their authority to shoot and kill strikers. Just as ........ > [Many more irrelevencies omitted] -------- Gee Tim, once you get going, you can't stop, even if you stray from what we were talking about. You are an inveterate polemicist. -------- > In the Soviet Union the argument is that all property, including Red Square, > is "owned by the State". Since the State owns the property it has the > right to prevent people from exercising their democratic rights. > Tell me how this is any different than saying that simply because > a public shopping mall which holds community events such as > "Crime Prevention Day" or "Picatiny Arsenal Day" is privately owned, > that therefore citizens lose all democratic rights. > Moreover imagine what happens when there *is no town square* or > public place except for the mall - what freedoms are left? ------- It's very different, because there is only one state, but many mall owners. Or are you imagining one big dome over the whole country.-) Moral: Stay out of countries where the state owns all the property! However, I agree that a mall is like a public thoroughfare. It's not your position on the public's right to dispense literature in malls that bothers me. I agree with it. It is simply your mentioning the failed attempt of one company to try and prevent distributing literature in their mall in the same breath as the Soviet Union's all too successful attempt to do the same in the entire country. That trivializes the desparate situation of dissidents and others in the Soviet Union, and makes it look like the U. S. and U. S. S. R. have similar human rights situations, except for degree. That's a big lie. -- Bill Tanenbaum - AT&T Bell Labs - Naperville IL ihnp4!ihlpg!tan
orb@whuts.UUCP (SEVENER) (02/19/86)
> > > [Me] > > > There you go again, Tim. There is absolutely no relation between the > > > situations in the U. S. and the Soviet Union. Neither the U. S. > > > government, nor state or local governments, have attempted to curtail > > > your rights to distribute literature. The only question is whether > > > the owner of private property should be able to outlaw the distribution of > > > literature (political or otherwise) on their property. My opinion is that, > > > with only a few exceptions, they can. > -------- > > [Tim Sevener] > > The US government most certainly *is* curtailing my right to distribute > > literature when its police authority is used to prevent my > > exercise of that right. > -------- > NO! NO! NO! The local police are acting on a complaint of the owner > of the private property. What does this have to do with the US govt? > Also, the police do not have the power to decide the mall is a public > thoroughfare. Only the legislatures or courts can do that. Prior to > the court ruling, the police would be remiss in not arresting you for > tresspass on complaint of the mall owner. > > Bill Tanenbaum - AT&T Bell Labs - Naperville IL ihnp4!ihlpg!tan Do you know the facts of this case? Because I expected to encounter a hassle from the mall management and the police I brought with me copies of several court rulings from various malls in New Jersey. That didn't matter one whit to the police officer OR the management. In order to protect my civil rights do I have to go into court umpteen million times? Another mall had *already* been successfully sued for preventing the Passaic County Nuclear Freeze from distributing literature. That didn't matter - they booted me out but said I could call to get a table. I was suspicious but willing to go along with their restrictions. So what happens? 1)the management can hardly be tracked down to reserve a table. Finally to resolve the issue a Freeze member took 3 hours off of work and planted herself in the manager's office until she would talk to her 2)the Freeze member said she wanted a table for the next weekend: sorry, the manager said, but you *MUST* reserve the table for the whole week 3)OK, the Freeze member said, we want a table for the whole week sorry, the manager said, but you must reserve the table for the whole week thirty days in advance 4)OK, the Freeze member said, we would like to reserve the table for the whole week thirty days from now sorry, the manager said, but you must send me a letter on your organization's letterhead stationery and THEN I can send you an application. (thereby meaning another two week delay while the "official letterhead" stationery from the Freeze is processed and then an application (maybe) is returned from the mall, which then must be sent back again 5)OK, the Freeze member said, we don't have "official letterhead" stationery but we will make some and send you a letter requesting an application for a table. By this time it will have to be for November or December. sorry, the manager said, but you can NOT reserve a table at ANY TIME during November and December because of the Christmas rush And so goes civil rights in the US of A....... tim sevener whuxn!orb
orb@whuts.UUCP (SEVENER) (02/19/86)
> > Just as the governmental authorities in the > > past used their authority to shoot and kill strikers. Just as ........ > > [Many more irrelevencies omitted] > -------- > Gee Tim, once you get going, you can't stop, even if you stray from > what we were talking about. You are an inveterate polemicist. > Bill Tanenbaum - AT&T Bell Labs - Naperville IL ihnp4!ihlpg!tan It is hardly irrelevant when talking about the denial of current civil rights and the threat this may pose in the future to point out that such things have happened in the past. Most Americans are never taught the history of the labor struggle in this country. How company towns controlled every aspect of people's lives and made a profit on every aspect of their lives. For example, one company town paid their workers with scrip that could *only* be used in company stores. How workers were shot and killed in the defense of the rights of private property. How workers were fired and worse for distributing pro-union literature on private property. During the Palmer Raids unionists and socialists were rounded up and arrested for "subversion". Many were placed in prisons for years. During the McCarthy era many people were fired and blacklisted for simply *knowing* somebody who was a Communist or leftist. The replacement of public town squares with privately owned malls poses the same challenge again: which will be respected, people's basic civil rights of freedom of speech or the rights of private property? I believe in the end that this country *will* follow its deep democratic traditions and protect people's rights to freedom of speech over private property's rights of repression. Just as we finally did in respecting workers' rights to distribute literature on private property and workers rights to strike. But it will not happen without effort. And it is part of the ongoing struggle to increase democracy as was done during the union movement and the civil rights movement. THAT is why history is relevant. tim sevener whuxn!orb
orb@whuts.UUCP (SEVENER) (02/19/86)
> > From me >Bill Tanenbaum > > In the Soviet Union the argument is that all property, including Red Square, > > is "owned by the State". Since the State owns the property it has the > > right to prevent people from exercising their democratic rights. > > Tell me how this is any different than saying that simply because > > a public shopping mall which holds community events such as > > "Crime Prevention Day" or "Picatiny Arsenal Day" is privately owned, > > that therefore citizens lose all democratic rights. > > Moreover imagine what happens when there *is no town square* or > > public place except for the mall - what freedoms are left? > ------- > It's very different, because there is only one state, but many mall owners. > > Bill Tanenbaum - AT&T Bell Labs - Naperville IL ihnp4!ihlpg!tan I see. In order to have a right to free speech I have to own a mall..... tim sevener whuxn!orb
orb@whuts.UUCP (SEVENER) (02/19/86)
> It's not your position on the public's right to dispense > literature in malls that bothers me. I agree with it. It is simply your > mentioning the failed attempt of one company to try and prevent distributing > literature in their mall in the same breath as the Soviet Union's all too > successful attempt to do the same in the entire country. That trivializes > the desparate situation of dissidents and others in the Soviet Union, and > makes it look like the U. S. and U. S. S. R. have similar human rights > situations, except for degree. That's a big lie. > -- > Bill Tanenbaum - AT&T Bell Labs - Naperville IL ihnp4!ihlpg!tan First off, let me say that I think we are in basic agreement on what people's rights *should* be with regard to distributing literature on private property. Namely that people have this right not for all private property but only when private property such as malls is a public thoroughfare which serves as a community center and hosts community events in the same manner as town squares. I am glad that you agree with me on this. On your objection to my raising the mall issue, I think you fail to see my underlying point. At NO TIME have I ever said that the US is *equivalent* to the Soviet Union in terms of civil rights. Even the Palmer Raids, which were crass and overt violations of civil rights, were a cakewalk compared to Stalin's massacres. Moreover while most Americans have forgotten how many workers were killed trying to establish basic union rights, the right to grievance procedures and so forth, such killings also come nowhere close to Stalin's killings. I am not about to justify Stalin's policies. At the same time, one must recognize that Stalin has been dead for 30 years now. The instruments of repression in the Soviet Union no longer include the wholesale slaughter of Stalinism. Instead they include summary arrest, the use of mental hospitals and generalized censorship. They also include restrictions on people's rights to distribute literature in public places. The American media is quite prolific and repetitive in pointing out this restriction in the Soviet Union. One can never see a documentary on the Soviet Union which does not mention restrictions on people's civil rights. The presumption of course is that the United States has NO such problems. This presumption is *wrong*. That is my point. Yet the mainstream American media never point this out. If you live in a suburb in which the mall is the community center in general you do NOT have the right to distribute literature. The New Jersey Nuclear Freeze has found this problem in every mall we have ever approached in this state. It has only been pressure and actual lawsuits which have forced some malls to change this policy. Even then, as with Willowbrook Mall, they impose such restrictions on literature distribution as to make it almost impossible to actually practice one's right to distribute literature. Certainly we should criticize other nation's restrictions of civil rights. But should the American media simply ignore similar restrictions in our own country? Isn't it even more important to uphold basic civil liberties in our own country before criticizing others? If we do not respect civil liberties in our own country then how can we pretend to be concerned about such restrictions by other countries? My point is that while criticizing other countries, we should not pretend that we are a Utopian, "holier-than-thou" perfect nation. Such an attitude promotes the oft-repeated chauvinist strategy of painting the enemy as the devil and one's own country as God's angel. Thus justifying any atrocity which may be committed or planned against the "devilish" opponent. For instance: "I have just signed legislation which outlaws Russia forever. The bombing starts in five minutes." FOR A FREER AMERICA! tim sevener whuxn!orb
jho@ihlpa.UUCP (Yosi Hoshen) (02/20/86)
>From: tim sevener whuxn!orb > At the same time, one must recognize > that Stalin has been dead for 30 years now. The instruments of repression > in the Soviet Union no longer include the wholesale slaughter of Stalinism. > Instead they include summary arrest, the use of mental hospitals and > generalized censorship. They also include restrictions on people's > rights to distribute literature in public places. I think that Tim failed to discuss one of the most serious civil right violation in the USSR. The USSR severely restricts the right of its people to emigrate. If you don't like the US, you can leave the country. There are many oppressive governments on this planet. Yet, when it comes to emigration, the USSR and its satellite nations are at the top of the list. Basically, the USSR can be viewed as a giant prison camp for its people. -- Yosi Hoshen, AT&T Bell Laboratories Naperville, Illinois, Mail: ihnp4!ihlpa!jho
dlo@drutx.UUCP (OlsonDL) (02/21/86)
[] >How >company towns controlled every aspect of people's lives and made a profit >on every aspect of their lives. > > tim sevener whuxn!orb I don't mean to sound flippant. However, done by such a company town, it would be called exploitation; done by the State, it would be called legislation, regulation, and taxation. Hmmm. My opinions are my own, and do not necessarily reflect those of my employer. David Olson ..!ihnp4!drutx!dlo
cramer@kontron.UUCP (02/21/86)
> > > Just as the governmental authorities in the > > > past used their authority to shoot and kill strikers. Just as ........ > > > [Many more irrelevencies omitted] > > -------- > > Gee Tim, once you get going, you can't stop, even if you stray from > > what we were talking about. You are an inveterate polemicist. > > Bill Tanenbaum - AT&T Bell Labs - Naperville IL ihnp4!ihlpg!tan > > It is hardly irrelevant when talking about the denial of current civil > rights and the threat this may pose in the future to point out that > such things have happened in the past. Most Americans are never > taught the history of the labor struggle in this country. How > company towns controlled every aspect of people's lives and made a profit > on every aspect of their lives. For example, one company town paid their > workers with scrip that could *only* be used in company stores. > How workers were shot and killed in > the defense of the rights of private property. How workers were fired > and worse for distributing pro-union literature on private property. That's what _I_ was taught in school. What they didn't teach us (and I had to find out by my own reading) was that labor unions weren't just victims -- there were times that they *started* the violence by dynamiting the barracks of non-union labor brought in to replace union laborers. I'm sure Tim has all sorts of excuses for labor unions killing people (after all, Tim believes in PEACE), but the fact remains: labor disputes had plenty of violence on both sides, and I wouldn't get too much of a "holier-than-thou" tone about it. Remember: a labor union is more properly termed "labor monopoly". A group of laborers attempt to restrict supply of a commodity (labor) in order to drive up the price of the commodity (wages). It is not surprising that labor unions in a free market have a hard (perhaps impossible) time monopolizing the labor supply, for the same reason that companies in a free market have a hard (perhaps impossible) time monopolizing a market. It is also not surprising that labor unions resorted to violence and intimidation, much like some of the robber barons of the last century did. What IS unacceptable is to claim that only businesses used violence to achieve their ends. What IS unacceptable is to ignore how widespread union violence is today to intimidate employers into giving in (sabotage, tampering with Hormel meat products, hiring sharpshooters to blow out utility company transformers) and to coerce workers into joining a union or supporting a strike. Tim, go ahead and deny it happens. (Hitler's Big Lie technique is firmly in use by socialists and unionists today.) It happens every single day in this country. The U.S. Supreme Court found the use of sharpshooters to destroy transformers "a legitimate collective bargaining technique" in 1973. My father was a union man and knew well what would happen if he were to cross a picket line. The lies that labor unions don't engage in large scale violence TODAY don't hold anymore. > During the Palmer Raids unionists and socialists were rounded up > and arrested for "subversion". Many were placed in prisons for years. > During the McCarthy era many people were fired and blacklisted > for simply *knowing* somebody who was a Communist or leftist. > Again, getting off the track. The issue of malls and free speech is quite irrelevant to the abuses of civil liberties during the Palmer Raids and McCarthy viciousness. > The replacement of public town squares with privately owned malls > poses the same challenge again: which will be respected, people's > basic civil rights of freedom of speech or the rights of private > property? Give me your home address: we are going to set up a libertarian information table in your bedroom between midnight and dawn. If we acknowledge your right to control YOUR private property, then we have to acknowledge the right of other people to control THEIR private property. Or is that much inconsistency difficult for you to understand? > I believe in the end that this country *will* follow its deep > democratic traditions and protect people's rights to freedom of > speech over private property's rights of repression. Just as > we finally did in respecting workers' rights to distribute literature > on private property and workers rights to strike. > But it will not happen without effort. And it is part of the > ongoing struggle to increase democracy as was done during the union > movement and the civil rights movement. THAT is why history is relevant. > > tim sevener whuxn!orb History is relevant. You aren't.
simon@elwood.DEC (Product Safety 237-3521) (02/21/86)
Once again I feel I have to apply my experience of living in the Soviet Union. Some of you may think that my views are biased, that I am a "hardliner", but here it goes. Some of you mentioned that in the USSR all property belongs to the State and this is the reason why the State "has the right to prevent people from exercising their democratic rights". By the Soviet law, everything in the USSR belongs to the people, including the State itself! Preventing people from distributing any kind of literature is a violation of this law. But this is on a side note. The main issue is, of course, the absolute irrelevance of comparison between a shopping mall and the Soviet state. I came to the USA with the only purpose: to be free. Free from the government intervention in my business, whether commercial or political. So, if I buy or lease a store at a mall, I expect that nobody tells me what to do there. Including my right to set the rules in the store. And if I don't anybody distributing literature there, I have a right to have the police to protect my property because all I want is profit. If I own a mall or a corporation, I should expect to have similar rights. IT IS PRIVATE PROPERTY. I may exaggerate a little, but that is my way of thinking. But it is way overboard to say that in order to have a right to free speech Tim Sevener has to own a mall... What many of you didn't realize about distributing literature on Red Square is the following: The authorities are not concerned about distributing Soviet literature. They are afraid of distributing "non-approved" literature, "samisdat" or something smuggled from the West. That's why they first grab the people there and then see who they got and for what. The authorities are really scared of this kind of literature, because it may contain the facts that are kept secret for the Soviet public. Do you know, for instance, that in order to make a Photostat copy of any document one has to get to authorizing signatures? And this is at work, there are no copiers in libraries, post offices and such. As far as American media's interpretation of the Soviet life is concerned, after living in Moscow for 30 years, I know and said it many times that life there is worse then you see it on TV here. Leo B. Simon Digital Equipment Corp. 333 South St. Shrewsbury MA, 01545 (617)841-3521 DTN 237-3521 Mail Stop SHR-4/D26 UUCP ...decvax!decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-elwood!simon ARPA simon%elwood.DEC@decwrl.ARPA You realize of course that all of the above does not have anything to do with my employer.
ins_akaa@jhunix.UUCP (Ken Arromdee) (02/22/86)
>> > Tim Sevener >>Bill Tanenbaum >> > In the Soviet Union the argument is that all property, including Red Square, >> > is "owned by the State". Since the State owns the property it has the >> > right to prevent people from exercising their democratic rights. >> > Tell me how this is any different... >> It's very different, because there is only one state, but many mall owners. >I see. In order to have a right to free speech I have to own a mall..... No, because the mall owners, etc... don't all make same resrictions. Surely there's a mall somewhere which has an owner who would allow you to give out pamphlets. Or if not, an organization somewhere which will let you use its facilities to give out pamphlets. Or, for that matter, a street corner, park, etc... where you can legally give out pamphlets. In the USSR the state controls everything. There's a great difference between not being allowed to do something everywhere and not being allowed to do it anywhere. -- "We are going to give a little something, a few little years more, to socialism, because socialism is defunct. It dies all by iself. The bad thing is that socialism, being a victim of its... Did I say socialism?" -Fidel Castro Kenneth Arromdee BITNET: G46I4701 at JHUVM and INS_AKAA at JHUVMS CSNET: ins_akaa@jhunix.CSNET ARPA: ins_akaa%jhunix@hopkins.ARPA UUCP: ...allegra!hopkins!jhunix!ins_akaa
orb@whuts.UUCP (SEVENER) (02/24/86)
> > >How > >company towns controlled every aspect of people's lives and made a profit > >on every aspect of their lives. > > > > tim sevener whuxn!orb > > I don't mean to sound flippant. However, done by such a company town, > it would be called exploitation; done by the State, it would be called > legislation, regulation, and taxation. Hmmm. > > David Olson > ..!ihnp4!drutx!dlo 1)in the United States so far as I know there are no towns totally owned and controlled by the State (unless you wish to count military bases, which actually generally come under separate and independent municipal jurisdictions) 2)there were no elections to determine either officials or policies of company towns when they existed. The company, usually owned and controlled by either one family or one person, determined everything autocratically. Such is *not* the case with local governments. Even if they may be controlled by elites, they at least must face elections. Many machines have lost their power by being voted out of office. (e.g. Daley's previously invincible machine lost the mayor's office) tim sevener whuxn!orb
goudreau@dg_rtp.UUCP (02/25/86)
In article <551@whuts.UUCP> orb@whuts.UUCP (SEVENER) writes: >I see. In order to have a right to free speech I have to own a mall..... > > tim sevener whuxn!orb No, Tim. You don't have to own a mall. There are still public areas that are accessible, even if only a curbside on the approach to the mall. What, you say that no one will bother to stop their car and read your petition? Too bad. These are private citizens choosing to take their commerce to a specific place; most of them are fully aware that a mall is private property. There is no law *forcing* people to spend some of their time on public property just so every organization can make the most of its free speech. Those who seek this (such as you) can choose to boycott malls, for example. If there are enough of you, malls will wither and downtown squares will prosper again. Or, you can attempt to reach people in other ways: mailings, telephone calls, door-to-door visits. You can invite everyone to *your* home and have no restrictions on who sets up tables or gives out flyers. The point is still that malls are private property, used as the owner sees fit. Having a significant portion of the "community life" happen at a mall doesn't require the owner to relinquish property rights. After all, in some communities the church building is an important location for social intercourse. Should a synagogue have to provide "equal time" for the KKK once it allows B'nai B'rith, for example? Of course, this whole issue is separate from the story of how property was allocated in the first place. But most of American society (and all of American jurisprudence) accept the concept of private property, so it looks like we'll have to take that as a given. Bob Goudreau
berman@psuvax1.UUCP (Piotr Berman) (02/28/86)
> In article <551@whuts.UUCP> orb@whuts.UUCP (SEVENER) writes: > >I see. In order to have a right to free speech I have to own a mall..... > > > > tim sevener whuxn!orb > > No, Tim. You don't have to own a mall. There are still public areas that > are accessible, even if only a curbside on the approach to the mall. What, > you say that no one will bother to stop their car and read your petition? > Too bad. These are private citizens choosing to take their commerce to a > specific place; most of them are fully aware that a mall is private property. > There is no law *forcing* people to spend some of their time on public > property just so every organization can make the most of its free speech. > Those who seek this (such as you) can choose to boycott malls, for example. > ......................................... > Should a synagogue have to provide "equal time" for the KKK > once it allows B'nai B'rith, for example? > ......................................... > > Bob Goudreau I would notice that synagogue is a meeting place of a specific religious community, and not explicitely open to the general public, like a mall. The shop interior is designated for people to come and shop, but the main alley of a mall does not have this specific character. If we provide examples, I also will give one. I live in a complex of 40+ appartment houses owned by a single company. Would it be right for the management to request asking their prior permition before canvassing the appartments to solicit donations? Would it be right for the management to throw out a girl scout or a proseliting Mormon? Or a peace activist? By the way, what is the status of the parking lots of shopping plazas, which are the favorite places in my semi-rural community for people collecting donations? If their status is the same as of the interior of a mall, then I think that my rights are seriously courtailed. Why should I be forced to communicate with pamphleteerers only when I am driving, and when I need to obstruct the trafick to stop my car? Bob ignores the reality in most of American communities, where we usually are either driving, or we walk on some private property. If a place is designated for walking for the general public, it should be treated equally as a public sidewalk or alley. Otherwise some of the rights of the general public are curtailed. When Tim is thrown out of a mall, not only his rights are abused, but also the rights of people who would gladly pick a leaflet or tell him that the peace movement is dumb; an activity which is an obvious right on a street of a city. Piotr Berman
orb@whuxl.UUCP (SEVENER) (03/05/86)
Piotr Berman asks: > > By the way, what is the status of the parking lots of shopping plazas, > which are the favorite places in my semi-rural community for people > collecting donations? > > If their status is the same as of the interior of a mall, then I think > that my rights are seriously courtailed. Why should I be forced to > communicate with pamphleteerers only when I am driving, and when > I need to obstruct the trafick to stop my car? > In Bergen County Mall volunteers for a political candidate were threatened with arrest for placing leaflets on cars in the parking lot. Thus mall owners would extend their censorship of free speech not just *inside* the mall itself but to all entrances and the entire parking lot. The New Jersey courts decided that such a threat was an unlawful infringement of the rights to free speech. tim sevener whuxn!orb
orb@whuxl.UUCP (SEVENER) (03/05/86)
> > When Tim is thrown out of a mall, not only his rights are abused, but > also the rights of people who would gladly pick a leaflet or tell him > that the peace movement is dumb; an activity which is an obvious right > on a street of a city. > > Piotr Berman Several passersby, besides signing the petition I was distributing also commended me for taking the trouble to circulate a petition on a very important issue. Indeed, one man said he could not agree with my political viewpoint but that he supported my right to express it. As he said, that is what is great about America! Ironically, a few minutes later I was expelled under threat of arrest from the shopping center management! tim sevener whuxn!orb
gdf@mtuxn.UUCP (G.FERRAIOLO) (03/06/86)
I would just like to thank Bill for taking the time to make the point
that comparing the human rights situation in the US to that of the
USSR is a 'big lie'. I am totally weary of the attempts to make the
two situations SEEM the same. The weird thing is that everyone in the
USSR knows the truth, the vast majority of the American people know the
truth, and I suspect even most of the people who try to deny the
truth (like our prolific Tim Sevener) know the truth. It just goes to
show the power of the lie.
Of course, truth has a power too, it just takes longer to show.
As that evil man A. Lincoln said, 'you can fool some of the people ...'
Incidentally, Tim, how do you think the Lincoln administration would
rate in terms of willingness to negotiate, freedom of the press,
repression of opposing politcal views, electoral fraud? I'm sure
that Marcos had nothing on Abe. That is why I refered to him as 'evil'.
Maybe we could have a human rights commission that would evaluate
the Federal Government's behavior. Then we could oppose that behavior
even if the South won the Civil War! There's nothing like standing on principle, eh.
What that's you say? You say the previous paragraph is absurd?
It doesn't seem founded in reality. Do I really want the South to win?
What's wrong with me anyway?
Just joking Tim, we all know that you REALLY post all these articles
to stimulate discussion. Right? You really don't think that if
the Communists take over the world (excepting the vile part know -
in a typically ethnocentric way - as America), right Tim?
The difference between the supression of speech in the USSR and in a
mall is that the USSR can impose any penalty, including death if the
party (CP that is) feels like it. What is the worst that you can
get for tresspassing?
Think about it.
gdf@mtuxn.UUCP (G.FERRAIOLO) (03/06/86)
I'm replying to myself but, ... I meant to say that I know that Tim doesn't think it is just fine if the Communists take over the world (except the US). You wouldn't like that , right Tim? Guy
bill@sigma.UUCP (William Swan) (03/07/86)
In article <1015@whuxl.UUCP> orb@whuxl.UUCP (SEVENER) scrawls: >Several passersby, besides signing the petition I was >distributing also commended me for taking the trouble to circulate >a petition on a very important issue. Indeed, one man said he >could not agree with my political viewpoint but that he >supported my right to express it. As he said, that is what is >great about America! Ironically, a few minutes later I was >expelled under threat of arrest from the shopping center management! > tim sevener whuxn!orb Really, now, Tim, you expect us to believe this? Can you say "aggrandizement"? --