ark@alice.UUCP (Andrew Koenig) (03/30/85)
First, Don, let me say that you have violated one of the primary rules of net etiquette: you have posted a copy of mail that has been sent to you privately without the poster's permission. Now, let's take a look at what you said, what I replied, and what you replied: >>> I also believe that anyone, no matter what his political or religious >>> beliefs, has the right to have his views heard and considered. That's >>> still contained in the Constitution, the last time I looked. >> I don't think you meant quite what you said. >> Although I do indeed have the right to say what I want, >> I do not have the right to force anyone else to listen, >> nor may I force anyone else to transmit my messages. >> Thus, I do not have the right to have my views "heard and considered," >> and that right is not guaranteed in the Constitution. >> Or did you mean something else? > What chemical is this person on? (There I go, using the tactics of the > opposition.) > I don't believe I have twisted anybody's arm to turn on their terminal > and read my material. And there's no way to force DECWRL to transmit my > material if it doesn't want to. Somebody's a little confused about facts > of life. > But this is just the kind of person that I am opposed to, those who > would crush the opposition, crush free expression, crush free choice. > This same person would slam the jail door on Ernst Zundel or provide the > match to burn a library. (as usual, your remarks have an odd number of > symbols in front of them; mine have an even number) When you made your first remark, I realized your statement could not be exactly true. In order to have your views heard and considered, there must be someone to listen and consider them. If you say you have the right to have your views heard and considered, you are really saying that you have the right to force someone to listen and consider them. So I pointed out, as politely as I could, that although you do indeed have the constitutionally guaranteed right to say what you please, your rights end there. You do not have the right to be heard, because that conflicts with others' rights not to listen. Your response is absurd. First paragraph: an ad hominem attack. Second paragraph: an irrelevancy. Third paragraph: another ad hominem attack. I point out that no one has the right to force people to listen to them and you angrily protest that you haven't been forcing people. I never said you were. I point out that no one has the right to force others to carry their messages and you angrily protest that you don't force DECWRL to transmit your material. I never said you did. In fact, what I was doing was exactly what you claimed you had the right to force me to do: hearing and considering your views. And, because I did what you say you want, in private, you call me someone who would "crush free expression, crush free choice" in public! I invite interested readers to draw their own conclusions from this interchange.