Re: Bernstein hearing: The Press Release

At 5:10 AM 9/23/96, Brian Davis wrote:
...
>There isn't such a clause.  The allowed restrictions were developed in
>case law.
>
>Constitutional literalists take note:  the First Amendment says nothing
>about what the executive branch or the states can do ....

Which is why President Jefferson was able to say:

"While the Constitution says "Congress shall make no law...," I am hereby
outlawing all discussion of the following subjects:.... And I have had it
with the Catholics and Jews in this country. While Congress has no power to
make laws respecting the establishment of religion or the exercise thereof,
I am under no such restrictions. Therefore, I am ordering the immediate
arrest and summary execution of all Papists and Jews...."

Seriously, does not the Constitution and Bill of Rights define what states
may do? And Presidents? The Executive is under various restrictions, and
cannot behave unconstitutionally. After all, if Alabama, for example,
reinstituted slavery, would not the 14th Amendment trump this? If
California were to, say, ban speech critical of women's or homosexual's
rights, would not the First Amendment trump this attempt?

--Tim May

We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, I know that that ain't allowed.
---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:----
Timothy C. May              | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money,
tcmay@got.net  408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero
W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA  | knowledge, reputations, information markets,
Higher Power: 2^1,257,787-1 | black markets, collapse of governments.
"National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."

On Sun, 22 Sep 1996, Timothy C. May wrote:

> If California were to, say, ban speech critical of women's or homosexual's
> rights, would not the First Amendment trump this attempt?

Not necessarily.

The Supreme Court has upheld Title VII's ban on workplace "harassment." 
The Court said it occured when "discriminatory intimidation, ridicule, and
insult" in a workplace create an uncomfortable "working environment." 

Then there's public accomodation law, under which the (I recall) Greek
owner of a privately-operated diner was held liable for using the word
"nigger" where a black woman could overhear. 

Clearly, speech that makes someone uncomfortable must be banned by the 
government.

-Declan

(More on some of this at http://joc.mit.edu/)


// declan@eff.org // I do not represent the EFF // declan@well.com //

In <Pine.SUN.3.91.960923065805.28623E-100000@eff.org>, on 09/23/96 
   at 07:23 AM, Declan McCullagh <declan@eff.org> said:

= .Clearly, speech that makes someone uncomfortable must be banned by
= .the  government.

= .-Declan

        is that what you really meant?  pretty liberal is it not?

        this gives in to the notion that if I'm standing on the street
    corner with a friend discussing anarchistic libertarian theory,
    and the proverbial fat lady waiting to cross the street has
    her 'common sense' offended and sings...

        this is what that big government liberal philosophy (and not
    just tax and spend) --regulation, and more regulation. they have
    already 'revised' in the name of political correctness even 
    history.  

        not withstanding that 'to the victor goes the spoils and the 
    rewriting of history,' the Feds have already brainwashed the last
    generation of school children, using the very element of society
    who disdained the government --the 60s liberal.

        I dunno, declan,  I did not really perceive you as a brain-
    washed, brain dead liberal.  if what you stated above is true, it
    is totally opposite to your stand on freedom of speech and the
    CDA.

        care to mitigate that statement or defend it in terms of free
    speech?

--
  O, what a fall there was, my countrymen!
    Then I, and you, and all of us fell down,
    Whilst bloody treason flourish'd over us.
        -- Shakespeare  (Julius Caesar)

attila wrote:

> = .Clearly, speech that makes someone uncomfortable must be banned by
> = .the  government.
> 
> = .-Declan
> 
>         is that what you really meant?  pretty liberal is it not?

      [silliness deleted out of mercy]

      One widely noted benefit of political repression is that people
develop a very nuanced sense of language - irony, for example.