kwmc@mtuxo.UUCP (k.cochran) (01/16/86)
> He says it's not over yet. > ``I'm encouraging all hackers to reach out and touch Jerry Falwell,'' > he said. ``If he's the Moral Majority, this is a good way of taking a vote.'' I cannot find words to express how senseless I think this auto-dialing prank is. A man who supposedly supports the American Civil Liberties Union is performing illegal acts to suppress Jerry Falwell's right to freedom of speech. His encouragement to other computer 'hackers' to do the same is probably also illegal, and is NOT 'a good way of taking a vote. It allows one person to vote AGAINST, 2880 times a day, and no-one to vote for. Is this the kind of democracy he wants to live in ? Ken Cochran mtuxo!kwmc
rcj@burl.UUCP (Curtis Jackson) (01/17/86)
In article <1225@mtuxo.UUCP> kwmc@mtuxo.UUCP (k.cochran) writes: >I cannot find words to express how senseless I think this auto-dialing >prank is. A man who supposedly supports the American Civil Liberties Union >is performing illegal acts to suppress Jerry Falwell's right to freedom of >speech. Since when is this autodialing campaign "suppress[ing] Jerry Falwell's right to freedom of speech"? Perhaps I would have more sympathy for your viewpoint, except that the primary goals of these evangelistic churches are (in order of attention given by the church and therefore, one must assume, in order of importance to the church): 1) Perpetuation of the church 2) Growth (membership growth, not spelled m-o-r-e- -b-e-l-i-e-v-e-r-s, but spelled m-o-r-e- -m-o-n-e-y and spelled m-o-r-e- -p-o-l-i-t-i-c-a-l i-n-f-l-u-e-n-c-e) 3) Bringing the church's programs/ideals/philosophies to fruition (a very distant third) Now, if these churches were taxed (that's T-A-X-E-D), like corporations, whose primary goals are: 1) Perpetuation of the corporation 2) Growth (monetary growth -- here they are more honest than churches but are still very cagey about admitting the spelling derivative m-o-r-e p-o-l-i-t-i-c-a-l- -i-n-f-l-u-e-n-c-e) 3) Bringing the corporation's programs/ideals/philosophies to fruition (a very distant third) then perhaps I could understand your outrage. As it is, having a few older relatives who are died-in-the-wool Southern Methodists and who have come close on occasion to giving away everything they have to support them for the next twenty-odd years to some of these money-hungry vampires, I fully support the man's actions. He was not attempting to be democratic at all, you see -- he was striking out at an injustice that was a potential hurt to someone he loved and over which he had no other recourse except what he did with his little autodialer. Please, feel free to write me and explain how this act was abridging in any way Jerry Falwell's "freedom of speech"; despite my ravings above I would be sincerly interested in hearing your arguments. BTW, can anyone out there point me to the Playboy article (expose') some years ago (like 4-6 years) that uncovered a lot of neat stuff about evangelists? I remember things like Oral Roberts having 3 people on full-time salary doing nothing but airbrushing his publicity photos to remove all the expensive rings off his fingers, Billy Graham appealing to the public that his ministry was going broke while he and his family purchased 6 loaded Cadillacs and 3 condos in the Keys, etc. Thanks in advance for any pointers, -- The MAD Programmer -- 919-228-3313 (Cornet 291) alias: Curtis Jackson ...![ ihnp4 ulysses cbosgd mgnetp ]!burl!rcj ...![ ihnp4 cbosgd akgua masscomp ]!clyde!rcj
spp@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU (Stephen P Pope) (01/17/86)
> I cannot find words to express how senseless I think this auto-dialing > prank is. A man who supposedly supports the American Civil Liberties Union > is performing illegal acts to suppress Jerry Falwell's right to freedom of > etc. > Is this the kind of democracy he wants to live in ? > > Ken Cochran mtuxo!kwmc Have you ever heard of "civil disobedience" Ken? This is where an individual or group of concerned citizens acts illegally, but non-violently and without hurting anyone, to obstruct the activities of an oppressive and harmful institution or authority. Civil disobedience is an important part of democracy. You may not agree with the politics of harrassing Falwell, but recall he advocates all sorts of violent things such as abortion clinic bombings. Defending his "freedom of speech" has little to due with his fund-raising activies which, of course, support all sorts of arch-conservative exploits. You may not agree with the above viewpoint, but if you accept that a large number of people share it, then maybe you can accept that this autodialing business is not a senseless attack on democracy. The whole point of civil disobedience is that society allows enough personal freedom that people can break the law, and will do it if they have a good enough reason. steve pope
cda@violet.berkeley.edu (Charlotte Allen) (01/18/86)
>> I cannot find words to express how senseless I think this auto-dialing >> prank is.... >> Ken Cochran mtuxo!kwmc >Have you ever heard of "civil disobedience" Ken? >steve pope Hmmmm.... what if all those people who sit down in the street and chain themselves to things learned how to use an auto-dialer......... things might get more interesting........ cda@ucbopal.Berkeley.edu
brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) (01/19/86)
While I think Falwell and his moral majority are something we could well do without, it's clear to see how this autodialing is a violation of his liberties that no member of the ACLU should feel justified in doing. People seem to be confusing "it's possible to do it" and "it's legal to do it" with "it's moral to do it." They are not the same thing. In this case, the Moral Majority has set up an 800 number, with an invitation that those who wish to call in support may do so free of charge. Under no circumstances has he said that anybody can call free, the invitation is quite specific. The fact that the only service the phone company provides is the general 800 number has *NOTHING* to do with it. Just because you *can* listen in on a cordless phone call doesn't make it a good thing to do. Just because you can call Jerry toll-free at his expense doesn't make it a good thing to do. In these issues, the best way I know to make a moral judgement is this. Pretend that any technical solution possible exists. Then act as though this were the case. If you are to make use of somebody else's 'property' or services, you should only make use of them according to the wishes of the owner. The fact that I don't have a fence is not an invitation to walk on my land. Those who fight from the "do whatever you can get away with" stance will only encourage stricter laws and more expensive technical solutions to problems involving violations of people's rights. Think of the world you are building. Apply the golden rule. If you had an 800 number for abortion information, would you want Mr. Falwell's supporters calling it with their autodialers? -- Brad Templeton, Looking Glass Software Ltd. - Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473
padraig@utastro.UUCP (Padraig Houlahan) (01/19/86)
In article <1225@mtuxo.UUCP>, kwmc@mtuxo.UUCP (k.cochran) writes: > > He says it's not over yet. > > ``I'm encouraging all hackers to reach out and touch Jerry Falwell,'' > > he said. ``If he's the Moral Majority, this is a good way of taking a vote.'' > > I cannot find words to express how senseless I think this auto-dialing > prank is. A man who supposedly supports the American Civil Liberties Union > is performing illegal acts to suppress Jerry Falwell's right to freedom of > speech. > > His encouragement to other computer 'hackers' to do the same is probably > also illegal, and is NOT 'a good way of taking a vote. It allows one person > to vote AGAINST, 2880 times a day, and no-one to vote for. > > Is this the kind of democracy he wants to live in ? > > Ken Cochran mtuxo!kwmc I agree. In spite of my dislike for Falwell and co., and of the KKK, I think that they should have the right to free speech, and strongly reject attempts to interfere with that right. Padraig Houlahan.
strickln@ihlpa.UUCP (Stricklen) (01/19/86)
> As it is, having a few older > relatives who are died-in-the-wool Southern Methodists and who have come close > on occasion to giving away everything they have to support them for the next > twenty-odd years to some of these money-hungry vampires, I fully support the > man's actions. He was not attempting to be democratic at all, you see -- he > was striking out at an injustice that was a potential hurt to someone he > loved and over which he had no other recourse except what he did with his > little autodialer. > I agree with Mr. Jackson that Jerry Falwell's freedom of speech was in no way violated by this act, albeit it an illegal one. My grandmother has re- discovered her religion (strict Southern Baptist) since the death of my grandfather. Although she had little formal education (through fourth grade in backwoods Arkansas) she has always been one of the most intelligent persons I have known. She has never fallen into the TV evangelists' traps, but she has seen it happen to many of her friends. One man, in particular, is suffering from a disease his doctors can do nothing about. This man sent $25 to Oral Roberts so the huckster would pray for him. The only thing the poor man got was a request in two weeks for $50 more -- to get more personal attention from Mr. Roberts. The man sent this money, and of course got another request for an even larger donation. I am happy to see someone tried to slow down this continuing rape of persons who can ill afford to part with their funds. Steve Stricklen AT&T Bell Laboratories ihnp4!ihlpa!strickln
rcj@burl.UUCP (Curtis Jackson) (01/19/86)
BTW, the legal points in here are few and far between; how about we move this discussion to net.religion and give the net.legal readers a break! In article <487@looking.UUCP> brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) writes: >Just because you *can* listen in on a cordless phone call doesn't make it >a good thing to do. Just because you can call Jerry toll-free at >his expense doesn't make it a good thing to do. Agreed, but the question was [originally, before I opened my big keyboard,] a legal one, not a moral one. It is not moral (in my book) to listen in on a cordless phone call, but it also legal to do so and the fact that I can and might listen in does not *legally* infringe upon the cordless phone user's freedom of speech. >The fact that I don't have a fence is not an invitation to walk on my land. No, but the fact that there are laws against trespassing is a good reason *not* to walk on your land. If you are contemplating selling your land (adjacent to my land) for a toxic waste dump site, that is an invitation for me to practice some civil disobedience and walk/sit/lie on your land anyway, with the full knowledge aforehand that I may/will be arrested for it. >Those who fight from the "do whatever you can get away with" stance >will only encourage stricter laws and more expensive technical solutions >to problems involving violations of people's rights. Think of the world >you are building. Neither the man who autodialed Falwell or I advocate "do whatever you can get away with". Although I think that Abbie Hoffman had some neat ideas, I do not agree with the philosophy espoused in "Steal This Book". But when something means enough to you, you should stand up and fight for it. >Apply the golden rule. If you had an 800 number for abortion information, >would you want Mr. Falwell's supporters calling it with their autodialers? If Mr. Falwell's 800 number was for informational purposes only, I don't think this would have happened. It is designed specifically to gather money for his machine, a machine which sends him and his messages all over the world to make astounding political statements that have great impact on the masses. Therefore, I think that we have a legal right to tax his church -- just as we tax corporations whose chairpersons run around the world doing the same thing on company funds. So far we have been lucky -- we haven't had a bad evangelist smart enough not to go overboard on a massive ego trip. With a few very strange exceptions (Jesse Helms), no one *wants* Falwell's support anymore -- it is a kiss of death because he has made such a fool of himself. <Favorite diety[ies]> help us if we ever get a smart weasel evangelist... -- The MAD Programmer -- 919-228-3313 (Cornet 291) alias: Curtis Jackson ...![ ihnp4 ulysses cbosgd mgnetp ]!burl!rcj ...![ ihnp4 cbosgd akgua masscomp ]!clyde!rcj
mrjk@edsel.UUCP (MRJK) (01/20/86)
Dear Friends, If you are having trouble reaching the Reverent Falwell, you might try his new number (800) 628-2000. He really wishes to hear from you if you want to confess your sins, or especially if wish to make a donation of $100 to recieve the cassette versions of the 24 best sermons of the last 30 years. You will also want to enroll in Liberty University, to earn a college degree in your own home via video cassette or at least help endow a scholorship for one of the many needy students. May the Joy of the Holy Spirit be with you.
brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) (01/20/86)
In article <965@burl.UUCP> rcj@burl.UUCP (Curtis Jackson) writes: > >>Apply the golden rule. If you had an 800 number for abortion information, >>would you want Mr. Falwell's supporters calling it with their autodialers? > >If Mr. Falwell's 800 number was for informational purposes only, I don't >think this would have happened. It is designed specifically to gather >money for his machine, a machine which sends him and his messages all >over the world to make astounding political statements that have great >impact on the masses. Therefore, I think that we have a legal right to >tax his church -- just as we tax corporations whose chairpersons run around >the world doing the same thing on company funds. While I agree the churches should have no special tax status, let me make my "golden rule" example more specific. Say you operate an abortion clinic, and accept donations via credit card on an 800 number. A catholic man's daughter goes to your clinic and obtains an abortion, probably after receiving advice on the matter over your phone number, too. Is this catholic man justified in autodialing your number and asking his friends to? He no doubt feels his daughter was pressured by you into this act that he considers horrible. Personally, he feels he is in much the same position as the man who autodialed Falwell. -- Brad Templeton, Looking Glass Software Ltd. - Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473
rcj@burl.UUCP (Curtis Jackson) (01/20/86)
In article <488@looking.UUCP> @looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) writes: >Say you operate an abortion clinic, and accept donations via credit card >on an 800 number. A catholic man's daughter goes to your clinic and >obtains an abortion, probably after receiving advice on the matter over >your phone number, too. > >Is this catholic man justified in autodialing your number and asking his >friends to? He no doubt feels his daughter was pressured by you into >this act that he considers horrible. Personally, he feels he is in >much the same position as the man who autodialed Falwell. > Ah, now here is a good counter-example -- except for one thing. This is not simply a cut-and-dried matter here because we are talking about, on the one hand, someone opposing an abortion clinic (Rah! Rah! Rah! shout the masses!), while on the other hand we have someone opposing organized religion (Boo! Hiss! Atheist! shout the masses!). I do see your point, it is a good one. "No", I would not think that the man was justified in autodialing the clinic. I am quite sure that there are a lot of people (including Brad) who say, "no", the guy who autodialed Falwell was not justified. But the difference is, the Catholic man could easily take the abortion clinic into court in this country on the premise that his daughter was coerced into committing this act that was detrimental to her mental well-being, that she was physically and emotionally traumatized, etc. etc. Consider an aging woman who, while in questionable mental condition (i.e., noticeably senile) and after massive guilt-trip applications via the tube, gives her life savings to Jerry Falwell or one of his ilk. As a relative who cares about her and her financial future, how far do you think you'd get in court (if into court at all) against Falwell in this country? Even though both were acts of "free will", one might easily argue that in either case the protagonist was coerced via psychological pressures that she was ill-equipped to deal with at the time? Summation: The Catholic man has an "easy" alternative *when compared to* the alternative facing the Falwell autodialer phantom. If you can work within the system without becoming part of the system and still achieve your reform goals, then more power to you. If you find you cannot, then after VERY careful consideration of the consequences some PEACEFUL protest that may or may not be legal is never completely out of the question. I don't agree with a lot of these protests, but I think that they are a good way to rally people to your cause (free publicity, break apathy, etc.), or to realize that there aren't a whole lot of people who believe in your cause after all. Legal Beagles: Are there any legal precedents for the treatment of peaceful protest and civil disobedience? -- The MAD Programmer -- 919-228-3313 (Cornet 291) alias: Curtis Jackson ...![ ihnp4 ulysses cbosgd mgnetp ]!burl!rcj ...![ ihnp4 cbosgd akgua masscomp ]!clyde!rcj
john@cisden.UUCP (John Woolley) (01/20/86)
Steve Pope should be more careful. He has (I think) opened himself up to a magnificent lawsuit by falsely claiming that somebody else has committed a crime. That's called "libel". In article <11434@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> spp@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU (Stephen P Pope) writes: >You may not agree with the politics of harrassing Falwell, >but recall he advocates all sorts of violent things >such as abortion clinic bombings. Dare we ask for a reference for this? If Falwell hasn't in fact advocated bombings (and I've sure never seen or heard of him doing it), and if it can be proved you actually typed the article that appeared over your signature, you could be in a heap-o-trouble, Mr. Pope. -- Peace and Good!, Fr. John Woolley "Compared to what I have seen, all that I have written is straw." -- St. Thomas
ron@brl-smoke.ARPA (Ron Natalie <ron>) (01/20/86)
> I cannot find words to express how senseless I think this auto-dialing > prank is. A man who supposedly supports the American Civil Liberties Union > is performing illegal acts to suppress Jerry Falwell's right to freedom of > speech. Eh? I can't see how he is restricting Jerry Falwell's freedom of speach. Next you will be saying that if I refuse to let Jerry Falwell broadcast over my television station, I'd be violating his rights as well. The essential principle here is that it is illegal to harass someone using the phone system. You should put a period after the word "acts" in your sentence. =Ron
ron@brl-smoke.ARPA (Ron Natalie <ron>) (01/20/86)
> Have you ever heard of "civil disobedience" Ken? This is where > an individual or group of concerned citizens acts illegally, > but non-violently and without hurting anyone, to obstruct > the activities of an oppressive and harmful institution or > authority. > Civil disobedience is an important part of democracy. Not quite. The important part of democracy in civil disobedience is to refuse to obey laws or acts to influence government, not to harm the "opressive and harmful institution". There is a fine line here. You claim that this is "non-violent and does not hurt anyone" but that claim is far from true. You are hurting Falwell. Causing him not only not to receive money but incurring him cost for answering the calls. One of the essential points of democracy (and a point repeatedly made by the ACLU) is that individuals be protected against other individuals deciding that they are in the wrong in such an ad hoc fashion. Martin Luther King would roll in his grave about your idea of non-violence here. > The whole point of civil disobedience is that society > allows enough personal freedom that people can break the > law, and will do it if they have a good enough reason. Great, I think that the Negro race is an abomination. I have a whole bunch of good ol' boys in white sheets and I feel we should that good ol' civil disobedience to kill all them there niggers. -Ron
maa@ssc-bee.UUCP (Mark A Allyn) (01/20/86)
> >> I cannot find words to express how senseless I think this auto-dialing > >> prank is.... > >> Ken Cochran mtuxo!kwmc > > >Have you ever heard of "civil disobedience" Ken? > >steve pope > > Hmmmm.... what if all those people who sit down in the street and > chain themselves to things learned how to use an auto-dialer......... > things might get more interesting........ > > cda@ucbopal.Berkeley.edu Hmmmm again . . . and things would get much more peacefull since there is lots less physical violence in using an auto dial than chaining yourself to something in the street.
cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) (01/21/86)
> In article <1225@mtuxo.UUCP> kwmc@mtuxo.UUCP (k.cochran) writes: > >I cannot find words to express how senseless I think this auto-dialing > >prank is. A man who supposedly supports the American Civil Liberties Union > >is performing illegal acts to suppress Jerry Falwell's right to freedom of > >speech. > > Since when is this autodialing campaign "suppress[ing] Jerry Falwell's right > to freedom of speech"? Perhaps I would have more sympathy for your viewpoint, > except that the primary goals of these evangelistic churches are (in order of > attention given by the church and therefore, one must assume, in order of > importance to the church): > If the autodialing campaign is OK, it shouldn't matter who it is being done to. If it's wrong, it shouldn't matter who it's being done to. This sounds like "it's OK 'cause I don't like Falwell." > BTW, can anyone out there point me to the Playboy article (expose') some years > ago (like 4-6 years) that uncovered a lot of neat stuff about evangelists? > I remember things like Oral Roberts having 3 people on full-time salary doing > nothing but airbrushing his publicity photos to remove all the expensive rings > off his fingers, Billy Graham appealing to the public that his ministry was > going broke while he and his family purchased 6 loaded Cadillacs and 3 condos > in the Keys, etc. Thanks in advance for any pointers, > -- If Oral Roberts had 3 people on salary to airbrush rings off his publicity photos instead of TAKING THE RINGS OFF FOR PHOTOGRAPHS, the guy would be so stupid he wouldn't have accumulated that much money. If you remember the article correctly, I would be real skeptical of its validity. > > The MAD Programmer -- 919-228-3313 (Cornet 291) > alias: Curtis Jackson ...![ ihnp4 ulysses cbosgd mgnetp ]!burl!rcj > ...![ ihnp4 cbosgd akgua masscomp ]!clyde!rcj
tw8023@pyuxii.UUCP (T Wheeler) (01/21/86)
Perhaps Mr Pope needs some lessons concerning "civil disobedience" in this country. What is refered to here is an act against a government, not a private entity. Civil disobedience is an act performed to change a situation which only affects a part of the population. Example: Civil diobedience should be used to correct or change those laws which prohibit only a portion of a population from enjoying their freedoms. In dialing the Falwell number with an autodialer, a person is acting against an individual. There are laws to protect that individual from being harassed. Those laws protect everyone in the same manner. Thus, this action is not an act of civil disobedience, it is plain and simple, harassement. I am sure that Mr Pope would scream to high heaven if some Falwellian should pull the same trick on him. There is a difference between civil disobedience and harrasement and the courts of this country have gone to great lengths to define the differences over the last 20 years. T. C. Wheeler
charli@cylixd.UUCP (Charli Phillips) (01/21/86)
In article <11434@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> spp@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU (Stephen P Pope) writes: > > >> I cannot find words to express how senseless I think this auto-dialing >> prank is. A man who supposedly supports the American Civil Liberties Union >> is performing illegal acts to suppress Jerry Falwell's right to freedom of >> etc. >> Is this the kind of democracy he wants to live in ? >> >> Ken Cochran mtuxo!kwmc > >Have you ever heard of "civil disobedience" Ken? Do you know what "civil disobedience " is, steve? In case you don't, here's what Blacks Law Dictionary says: civil disobedience: A form of lawbreaking employed to demonstrate the injustice or unfairness of a particular law and indulged in deliberately to focus attention on the allegedly undesirable law. > Civil disobedience is an important part of democracy. Whatever happened to the principle, "I don't agree with anything you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." Isn't *that* an important part of democracy? regards, Charli
BSD@PSUVM.BITNET (01/21/86)
> >Apply the golden rule. If you had an 800 number for abortion information, >would you want Mr. Falwell's supporters calling it with their autodialers? > >-- >Brad Templeton, Looking Glass Software Ltd. - Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473 Do you really think something like 'Do to others as you would be done' would stand in the way of Mr. Falwell's and/or other zealots' actions against something 'so obviously sinful and shameful in the sight of God'? I think a good example of this is the bombings of abortion clinics and women's health centers across the country. I've never quite understood how the Golden Rule and these groups (as well as others) go together. This sort of self-contradiction sort of weakens their credibility in my eyes.
strickln@ihlpa.UUCP (Stricklen) (01/22/86)
> Legal Beagles: Are there any legal precedents for the treatment of peaceful > protest and civil disobedience? I am no legal beagle, but we have just created a national holiday to honor a man who well knew the power of peaceful protest and civil disobedience. (Sorry, I just couldn't pass that one up.) Steve Stricklen AT&T Bell Laboratories ihnp4!ihlpa!strickln
mim@ihnp3.UUCP (M. K. Fenlon) (01/22/86)
How can the phantom autodialer be compared to peace or civil rights demonstrators? The civil activist have the courage to show their face and be arrested. The civil activist calls public attention to what they consider a public wrong. Their influence is more than the physical act of demonstrating. They raise our consciousness of issues. Personally I don't like Farwell, but I don't think it fair to push my opinions on others. People have a right to put their money into things they beleive in and value. Unless a person is mentally incompetent, it is their business and not anyone else's business. Mary Fenlon
spp@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU (Stephen P Pope) (01/23/86)
There seems to be a couple of general misconceptions here. One, is that Falwell's fund raising operation primarily supports his "freedom of speech". Actually, it's the other way around. He uses his freedom of speech to support his fundraising. Only a teeny fraction of what he rakes in supports the TV appearances etc. He doesn't really make public how he spends his money, but presumably it supports Moral Majority type operations of all sorts, few of which fall under the first amendment. I'm not saying the guy shouldn't be allowed to operate. I'm just saying it's not a question of "freedom of speech". Second, is the idea that tying up his phone lines is not an act of civil disobedience. Civil disobedience is usually defined as "refusing to obey laws as a means of influencing a government". I contend that "authority" or "institution" can be substituted for "governement" here, and often is. In particular, when the institution has the strong backing of the government (subsidization in the case of Falwell). It's clear to me this is an act of civil disobedience, and just because you may not agree with the politics doesn't make it any less so. On a related subject, does anybody remember the GOP's organized, public effort to tie up the Democrat's fundraising phones during that telethon in 84? How does this compare legally/ethically to autodialing Falwell? Seems offhand like a more serious offense since it involved conspiracy. steve
kurtzman@uscvax.UUCP (Stephen Kurtzman) (01/24/86)
In article <633@brl-smoke.ARPA> ron@brl-smoke.ARPA (Ron Natalie <ron>) writes: >There is a fine line here. You claim that this is "non-violent >and does not hurt anyone" but that claim is far from true. You >are hurting Falwell. Causing him not only not to receive money >but incurring him cost for answering the calls. The idea behind non-violent protest is to not inflict direct physical harm. I believe this is the spirit in which the person made the claim that auto-dialing Falwell is not hurting anyone. People against Falwell might conclude that auto-dialing prevents harm (both monetary and emotional) from befalling those who might otherwise have been able to call. As for incurring Falwell costs: Falwell is the one advertising his 800 number and asking for people to call. I wonder if any of the people answering the phones ever said "Please do not call again." Unless this was done, has the legal definition of harrassment by phone been met? >Martin Luther King would roll in his grave about your idea of non-violence >here. How do you distinguish between picket lines that prevent a business from recieving customers in person, and autodialing (phone picketing) which prevents a business (Falwell's money organization) from recieving customers by phone. There is an analogy here (albeit a poor one). It seems the only laws that the autodialer broke are laws prohibiting harrassment by phone -- he did not violate Falwell's freedom of speech. >> The whole point of civil disobedience is that society >> allows enough personal freedom that people can break the >> law, and will do it if they have a good enough reason. > >Great, I think that the Negro race is an abomination. I have a whole >bunch of good ol' boys in white sheets and I feel we should that good >ol' civil disobedience to kill all them there niggers. No, the whole point of civil disobedience is that society allows people enough personal freedom to break the law and go to jail as a protest action. Sometimes charges are dropped (usually after the person has been in jail for a few hours) but this is not always the case. Whether the person is charged with a crime depends on the protest action, the thing being protested, and the people involved.
pete@valid.UUCP (Pete Zakel) (01/24/86)
> > > >Apply the golden rule. If you had an 800 number for abortion information, > >would you want Mr. Falwell's supporters calling it with their autodialers? > > > >-- > >Brad Templeton, Looking Glass Software Ltd. - Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473 > > Do you really think something like 'Do to others as you would be done' > would stand in the way of Mr. Falwell's and/or other zealots' > actions against something 'so obviously sinful and shameful in > the sight of God'? I think a good example of this is the bombings > of abortion clinics and women's health centers across the country. > > I've never quite understood how the Golden Rule and these groups (as > well as others) go together. This sort of self-contradiction > sort of weakens their credibility in my eyes. > Part of the purpose of using the Golden Rule is to set an example. If you start putting yourself on the level of the Falwells and Reagans and Khadafies, you end up doing what they are doing and you are JUST AS BAD as they are. The idea is to raise yourself above their level. Once they are in a sufficient minority, they lose their power. -Pete Zakel (..!{hplabs,amd,pyramid,ihnp4}!pesnta!valid!pete)
ins_akaa@jhunix.UUCP (Ken Arromdee) (01/25/86)
In article <426@cisden.UUCP> john@cisden.UUCP (John Woolley) writes: >Steve Pope should be more careful. He has (I think) opened himself up to a >magnificent lawsuit by falsely claiming that somebody else has committed a >crime. That's called "libel". >>You may not agree with the politics of harrassing Falwell, >>but recall he advocates all sorts of violent things >>such as abortion clinic bombings. >Dare we ask for a reference for this? If Falwell hasn't in fact advocated >bombings (and I've sure never seen or heard of him doing it), and if it can >be proved you actually typed the article that appeared over your signature, >you could be in a heap-o-trouble, Mr. Pope. No. Falwell is a public figure, and the standards for concluding libel of a public figure are much stricter. -- "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
wdm@ecn-pc.UUCP (Tex) (01/26/86)
In article <11515@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> spp@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU (Stephen P Pope) writes: >There seems to be a couple of general misconceptions here. Indeed. > >One, is that Falwell's fund raising operation primarily supports >his "freedom of speech". Actually, it's the other way around. >He uses his freedom of speech to support his fundraising. Are you saying that Falwell's right to freedom of speech does not cover his fundraising activities? I would be interested to hear how you justify this. >He doesn't really make public how he spends >his money, but presumably it supports Moral Majority type >operations of all sorts, few of which fall under the >first amendment. Actually, virtually anything that a church does is protected under the Constitution. I am not certain that that is what the Framers intended, but that is the way that it has been interpreted. >I'm not saying the guy shouldn't be allowed >to operate. I'm just saying it's not a question of "freedom >of speech". You are correct, it is a question of freedom of religion. > >On a related subject, does anybody remember the GOP's >organized, public effort to tie up the Democrat's >fundraising phones during that telethon in 84? I don't. Please let me know where proof of an "organized, public effort" to tie up the Democrats' phones can be found. I have a feeling that this is another "Falwell supports the bombing of abortion clinics..." Lest I be misunderstood, I am NOT a supporter of Falwell's, I am NOT a Christian, and I am NOT strongly conservative. I just feel that the general mood on this group has been that since Falwell is a flake, he shouldn't have the Constitutionally protected freedoms that everyone else has. It is so true that a society can be judged by how it treats its least popular.
gadfly@ihuxn.UUCP (Gadfly) (01/26/86)
-- > >There is a fine line here. You claim that this is "non-violent > >and does not hurt anyone" but that claim is far from true. You > >are hurting Falwell. Causing him not only not to receive money > >but incurring him cost for answering the calls. > > The idea behind non-violent protest is to not inflict direct physical > harm... I think a lot of folks are confusing morality with manners. Fallwell's right to free speech has not been abrogated. The US Constitution gave him that right, and no superseding law is about to take it away (yet). The auto-dialer may be violating some minor phone-use laws, but the umbrage taken at his methods is much more at his violation of phone-use etiquette. The auto-dialer is not immoral; he is rude. Fortunately for us Americans, we have the right to be rude. Effective picketters are often quite surly. The legal problems arise when, as they say, push comes to shove. In which case, the shover violates the rights of the shovee in the name of some nobler cause or authority. The test of the morality of such an act is that the trangressor fully accept the responsibility for the act *and the consequences*, and not slink off into the night. -- *** *** JE MAINTIENDRAI ***** ***** ****** ****** 26 Jan 86 [7 Pluviose An CXCIV] ken perlow ***** ***** (312)979-7753 ** ** ** ** ..ihnp4!iwsl8!ken *** ***
jsdy@hadron.UUCP (Joseph S. D. Yao) (01/27/86)
In article <308@pyuxii.UUCP> tw8023@pyuxii.UUCP (T Wheeler) writes: >Perhaps Mr Pope needs some lessons concerning "civil disobedience" >in this country. What is refered to here is an act against >a government, not a private entity. Not to contradict your point, but your distinction is a bit lacking. One of the more famous pieces of civil disobedience was the boarding of a bus in Atlanta a few years ago. This was an act against a private entity, albeit the underlying reason was to protest an unjust law. -- Joe Yao hadron!jsdy@seismo.{CSS.GOV,ARPA,UUCP}
spp@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU (Stephen P Pope) (01/28/86)
> >Steve Pope should be more careful. He has (I think) opened himself up to a > >magnificent lawsuit by falsely claiming that somebody else has committed a > >crime. That's called "libel". > > No. Falwell is a public figure, and the standards for concluding libel of a > public figure are much stricter. What's more, the statement in question was clearly qualified as only an opinion, something that is not very obvious in John Wooley's out-of-context quote. One would be quite naive to form one's opinion of Falwell based solely on his public statements taken at face value! But I should be a little more careful -- the level of sarcasm in my comments, while apparent to many, seems to have escaped a few. steve
wdm@ecn-pc.UUCP (Tex) (01/28/86)
In article <1329@ihuxn.UUCP> gadfly@ihuxn.UUCP (Gadfly) writes: >-- >> >There is a fine line here. You claim that this is "non-violent >> >and does not hurt anyone" but that claim is far from true. You >> >are hurting Falwell. Causing him not only not to receive money >> >but incurring him cost for answering the calls. >> >> The idea behind non-violent protest is to not inflict direct physical >> harm... According to whom? If you read Ghandi, it is imperative that no one come to physical harm as a result of a protest. On the other hand if a non-violent protest is any protest where no one is caused direct physical harm, then I think I will torch an empty building here on campus next time there is a tuition increase. Surely no one will object to this obviously non-violent protest. >I think a lot of folks are confusing morality with manners. Fallwell's >right to free speech has not been abrogated. Hmmmmmmm, let's see if I understand you: Falwell put the WATS lines in so that he could spread his message. Autodialer repeatedly calls the number, just to prevent the line from being used in the manner in which it was intended - to spread the Gospel according to Jerry. It is Falwell's right to spread his message as he sees fit. This right is guaranteed under the First Amendment. But his phone lines are tied up, so he can't to it. So, Autodialer IS preventing Falwell from exercising his right to free speech. >The US Constitution gave >him that right, and no superseding law is about to take it away (yet). >The auto-dialer may be violating some minor phone-use laws, but the >umbrage taken at his methods is much more at his violation of phone-use >etiquette. Agreed that the autodialer is probably violating phone-use laws, but that certainly is not the extent of it. If I illegally carry around a handgun and then kill someone with it, I don't think it would be very effective to claim that my only crime was to carry around a handgun illegally. >Fortunately >for us Americans, we have the right to be rude. Effective picketters >are often quite surly. The legal problems arise when, as they say, >push comes to shove. Right, but in this case, push came to shove when Autodialer prevented Falwell from using his guaranteed freedoms. >ken perlow .signature file trimmed down to make the message short, not to infringe upon your freedom of expression. bill
dalton@gladys.UUCP (David Dalton) (01/30/86)
In article <426@cisden.UUCP>, john@cisden.UUCP (John Woolley) writes: > > Dare we ask for a reference for this? If Falwell hasn't in fact advocated > bombings (and I've sure never seen or heard of him doing it), and if it can > be proved you actually typed the article that appeared over your signature, > you could be in a heap-o-trouble, Mr. Pope. Mr. Pope need not worry about a libel suit. Jerry Falwell would certainly be considered a "public figure" in a libel case, and he therefore gives up certain protections that ordinary citizens have. Mr. Falwell has "thrust himself into the vortex" (a phrase from some court ruling, I believe) of public affairs. Mr. Falwell speaks out on controversial political issues. The founding fathers wanted the people of this country to enjoy the benefits of free-wheeling debate upon matters of public interest. In this public arena, overblown rhetoric -- and lies -- are tolerated. Mr. Falwell tells public lies about people all the time. Therefore he must endure it when other people tell lies about him. It is extremely difficult -- as it ought to be -- for controversial figures like Mr. Falwell to collect damages when the rhetoric goes against him. I am somewhat resentful of Mr. Woolley's threatening a libel suit in Mr. Falwell's behalf. No one should be afraid of discussing public affairs on this network, even if one gets one's facts wrong sometimes. We are all quite free to say nasty things about our political leaders. David Dalton [ihnp4!burl!gladys!dalton]
tw8023@pyuxii.UUCP (T Wheeler) (01/30/86)
Just to set it straight, the buses in Hotlanta (Atlanta) ARE owned by the city. T. C. Wheeler
gkm@ho95e.UUCP (gkm) (02/06/86)
I thought that civil disobedience could only occur when there is a law prohibiting some action that is being done. Since there is no law against dialing an 800 number any number of times I can't see why this action is being called "civil disobedience". I agree that arguments can be made as to its morality. I thint the solution to the problem is to make a smarter 800 system which prevents such action. . > > > There seems to be a couple of general misconceptions here. > > One, is that Falwell's fund raising operation primarily supports > his "freedom of speech". Actually, it's the other way around. > He uses his freedom of speech to support his fundraising. > Only a teeny fraction of what he rakes in supports the TV > appearances etc. He doesn't really make public how he spends > his money, but presumably it supports Moral Majority type > operations of all sorts, few of which fall under the > first amendment. I'm not saying the guy shouldn't be allowed > to operate. I'm just saying it's not a question of "freedom > of speech". > > Second, is the idea that tying up his phone lines is not an > act of civil disobedience. Civil disobedience is usually defined > as "refusing to obey laws as a means of influencing a > government". I contend that "authority" or "institution" > can be substituted for "governement" here, and often is. > In particular, when the institution has the strong backing > of the government (subsidization in the case of Falwell). > It's clear to me this is an act of civil disobedience, and > just because you may not agree with the politics doesn't > make it any less so. > > On a related subject, does anybody remember the GOP's > organized, public effort to tie up the Democrat's > fundraising phones during that telethon in 84? > How does this compare legally/ethically to autodialing > Falwell? Seems offhand like a more serious offense since > it involved conspiracy. > > steve *** REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR MESSAGE ***