matthews@harvard.UUCP (Jim Matthews) (02/15/86)
In article <536@whuts.UUCP> orb@whuts.UUCP (SEVENER) writes: > >Finally, before we get holier-than-thou about Soviet peace activists >being arrested for distributing literature we should remember that >the New York Supreme Court just recently ruled that anti-nuclear >activists distributing literature in malls in New York State could >be arrested for trespassing. > tim sevener whuxn!orb I find it simply incredible that a person with any conception of reality in the Soviet Union could write the above. There is absolutely nothing in common between the policies governing dissent in the Soviet Union and the laws that prohibit trespassing in the United States. They are completely alien to one another in origin, purpose, and effect. The implicit comparison between pamphleteers in our malls and the residents of the Gulag is sickening, and only belittles the plight of Soviet prisoners of conscience. Jim Matthews matthews@harvard
orb@whuts.UUCP (SEVENER) (02/17/86)
> In article <536@whuts.UUCP> orb@whuts.UUCP (SEVENER) writes: > > > >Finally, before we get holier-than-thou about Soviet peace activists > >being arrested for distributing literature we should remember that > >the New York Supreme Court just recently ruled that anti-nuclear > >activists distributing literature in malls in New York State could > >be arrested for trespassing. > > tim sevener whuxn!orb > > I find it simply incredible that a person with any conception > of reality in the Soviet Union could write the above. There is absolutely > nothing in common between the policies governing dissent in the Soviet > Union and the laws that prohibit trespassing in the United States. They > are completely alien to one another in origin, purpose, and effect. > The implicit comparison between pamphleteers in our malls and > the residents of the Gulag is sickening, and only belittles the plight > of Soviet prisoners of conscience. > > Jim Matthews > matthews@harvard Jim, I am not saying that our country is currently equivalent to the Soviet Union. I noted that after a letter from an ACLU lawyer that the mall in New Jersey apologized. We *do* still have a rule of law roughly based upon the Constitution. I would like to maintain that system. Don't you? However that should not blind us to possible threats to our democratic rights. Nor is it true that every transgression in the Soviet Union leads to a Gulag. In fact, if you had seen the Frontline show "Russia - Love it or Leave it" you would know that while the peace activist was arrested for distributing literature that at the time of the TV interview she was living peacefully at home amidst her Nuclear Freeze bumperstickers. She was not sent to a Gulag anymore than I would have been had I been arrested. That does not mean that she was not intimidated and prevented from exercising her rights. Every day another shopping mall is built - in some newly built suburbs there never is a town square since the shopping mall serves its function from the beginning. In other areas, the traditional town square and its business district dies as the shopping mall replaces it. In many communities, particularly in the New Jersey suburbs, the shopping mall *IS* the locus of public activity and community events. Shopping Malls have Boy Scout events, exhibits from local military arsenals, and other "community" events. They are *the only place* where the public can go see such events and they are the locus of community activities in exactly the same fashion as town squares. In order to distribute political literature one does not do well in a closet. Nor is this any democratic "freedom" of any consequence to be free to distribute literature in a closet. The Soviet peace activist had no trouble being arrested for her Nuclear Freeze bumpersticker in her own apartment. She got in trouble for trying to disseminate her views in public; rights guaranteed by the Helsink Accords and the Univeral Bill of Rights. If present trends continue then in many places there will be no public town squares, only shopping malls. What will become of *our* political rights guaranteed under our own Constitution if there is no place to distribute literature to the public? If one is simply not allowed to distribute literature where the public actually congregates? We will wind up with repression of democratic rights similar to the Soviet Union, in which distributing literature is to court arrest. It does not matter to me if such repression in our own country is based upon the rights of *private* property while in the Soviet Union it is based upon the rights of *public* property. The end result is the same loss of democratic rights. Nor does it matter to me if in our own country the punishment is less severe - arrest and possible loss of a job versus eventually being sent to a Gulag in the Soviet Union. The denial of civil liberties is wrong. Period. tim sevener whuxn!orb
jho@ihlpa.UUCP (Yosi Hoshen) (02/18/86)
> From: tim sevener whuxn!orb > > Jim, I am not saying that our country is currently equivalent to the > Soviet Union... > ... Nor is it true that every transgression in the > Soviet Union leads to a Gulag... This reminds me of a joke: An American and a Russian were arguing. Each one was claiming that his country is more democratic. The American said: "I can go to the white house and yell 'Reagan is an idiot and a fool', and will not be arrested". The Russian answered, "Big deal, I can go to the Kremlin and yell, 'Reagan is an idiot and a fool' and will not be arrested". -- Yosi Hoshen, AT&T Bell Laboratories Naperville, Illinois, Mail: ihnp4!ihlpa!jho
cramer@sun.uucp (Sam Cramer) (02/18/86)
After reading Tim Sevener's chilling account of US oppression of progressive
forces in the nation's shopping malls I was reminded of the following joke.
An American visiting Moscow was standing in a large subway stop underneath
Moscow with his Soviet host. Russians are quite proud of the glory and
the splendor of the Moscow Metro, and his host went into considerable detail
about the remarkable architecture of the stop, the beautiful art on
the wall, the herculean efforts that went into the construction
of the system, etc. After hearing this, the American said "Well, you're
right. The Metro really is a marvel. However, I noticed that during the
30 minutes that we've been standing here talking, not a single train came."
The Soviet citizen replied "Yes, but what about the American slaughter of the
Indians?"
--
Sam Cramer uucp: {cbosgd,decwrl,hplabs,seismo,ucbvax}!sun!cramer
arpanet: cramer@sun.arpajablow@brahms.BERKELEY.EDU (Eric Robert Jablow) (02/23/86)
In article <1122@ihlpa.UUCP> jho@ihlpa.UUCP (Yosi Hoshen) writes: >This reminds me of a joke: > >An American and a Russian were arguing. Each one was claiming that >his country is more democratic. The American said: "I can go to >the white house and yell 'Reagan is an idiot and a fool', and will >not be arrested". The Russian answered, "Big deal, I can go to the >Kremlin and yell, 'Reagan is an idiot and a fool' and will not be >arrested". >-- Actually, not necessarily true. Back in the early '70s, when detente was first "negotiated", criticism of Richard Nixon became suddenly discouraged. It was against the interest of the state. If Reagan becomes Russia's friend somehow, then all the carping will stop. Respectfully, Eric Robert Jablow MSRI ucbvax!brahms!jablow I may be a screwy little wabbit, but at least I'm not going to Alcatraz! --E. Fudd--
sykora@csd2.UUCP (Michael Sykora) (03/01/86)
>/* csd2:net.politics / orb@whuts.UUCP (SEVENER) / 12:02 pm Feb 17, 1986 */ >She was not sent to a Gulag anymore >than I would have been had I been arrested. Perhaps not, but how do you know? >If present trends continue then in many places there will be no >public town squares, only shopping malls. What will become of >*our* political rights guaranteed under our own Constitution if >there is no place to distribute literature to the public? If a significant percentage of people who avail themselves of malls wish to see the dissemination of such literature, mall owners will have no choice but to oblige them, or see business go elsewhere. If very few people care, well, that's democracy in action. It seems to me that you so often sing the praises of democracy, Tim, why not now? >If one >is simply not allowed to distribute literature where the public >actually congregates? It is not clear that it is necessary to be "where the public congregates" in order to reach it. Modern telecommunications technology has provided means to communicate easily with masses of people, such as cable television, this and other networks. There may well be other means that have occurred to neither you nor I. > tim sevener whuxn!orb Mike Sykora
orb@whuxl.UUCP (SEVENER) (03/04/86)
> >If present trends continue then in many places there will be no > >public town squares, only shopping malls. What will become of > >*our* political rights guaranteed under our own Constitution if > >there is no place to distribute literature to the public? > > If a significant percentage of people who avail themselves of malls wish > to see the dissemination of such literature, mall owners will have no choice > but to oblige them, or see business go elsewhere. If very few people care, > well, that's democracy in action. It seems to me that you so often sing > the praises of democracy, Tim, why not now? > > Mike Sykora The best form of democracy as I see it involves not simply rule by the masses but protection of individual rights and civil liberties, protection for the rights of alternative viewpoints, however repugnant, to express themselves in public. What is so reprehensible about the Soviet Union and other Leninist dictatorships is that no such civil liberties are allowed. Dissenters have no place to dissent without the approval of the authorities. Let us turn your argument around, Mike: "if a significant percentage of the Soviet people wish to see literature in Red Square they will press upon the Soviet authorities for that right." But why should they *have* to beg askance from the authorities? To acknowledge such a demand in the first place is to acknowledge that there is no room for dissemination of opinions outside of that acceptable to the authorities. By the same argument to say that the expression of opinions in our own country depend upon their profitability for narrow interest groups would mean that "freedom of speech" is really no such thing at all - it would become just as dependent on the whims of authorities (even if different authorities) as public expression in Leninist dictatorships. I find it incredible that "Libertarians" whose utmost concern is supposedly "freedom" could support such repression of free speech! tim sevener whuxn!orb