Michael Reuss Not Impressed by Judy Stein's Posturing in Support of Free Speech |
Michael Reuss replied to Judy Stein's a.m.t. post:
Judy Stein wrote:
>> I said *I* personally was going to
>> complain to Netcom about *one* very specific type of "lampooning"
>> of my sig Andrew was doing that was potentially injurious to my
>> business (not because of the juvenile insults but because it
>> could cause potential clients to try to contact me at a
>> nonexistent email address). As Andrew well knows--because I've
>> said so explicitly many times--he's welcome to engage in any
>> lampooning of my sig he wishes *except* for that one type.
When I first posted to a.m.t, it was because I wanted to weigh in
against precisely this heavy handed tendency of certain, closely bound
religious and spiritual types to squelch dissent and the rights of
people to speak by threatening to sue. At that time, Judy assured me
that no such thing would ever be done by TM or TMers. She even said that
she'd defend to the death anyone's right to speak freely.
Parody (and I trust that anyone with at least 1/2 a brain will see that
Judy's business was not threatened by Andrew's sig parody) has always
been one of the most protected methods of dissent. Judy (once again)
fails to see the authoritarian, anti-free speech tendencies in her own
positions.
>> My complaint was intended only to have Netcom require Andrew to
>> cease that one type of lampooning, not make him stop the
>> lampooning overall, much less to get him kicked off Netcom.
Here you make the point that Andrew's lampooning is recognizable (even
to you!) as lampooning, and because it is easily recognizable as parody,
it cannot be considered a serious threat to your ability to engage in
commerce. You should be ashamed of yourself, Judy. Defend to the death,
indeed.
>>> She then threatened to take legal action if Netcom didn't comply,
>>> suggesting that she and her attorney just might set a "legal precedent."
Sue em to shut em up. That would be an interesting (if less than speech
liberating) precedent to set. But the Scientologists have beaten Judy to
the punch. They broke the trail for this odious type of squelching of
political opposition long ago.
>> Right. My attorney thinks I have a good case.
I think your attorney is appeasing you. I'll bet he/she/it wouldn't take
the case on a consignment basis. Why don't you ask him/her/it about
taking this case on a consignment basis, and then report back?
>>> After nobody took the foul-mouthed blowhard seriously, she announced
>>> that didn't have to take action because I was complying with her
>>> demands. Of course, I wasn't complying with any of her demands.
Oh, oh, Andrew, now you're in trouble... ;-)
>> In fact, for a period Andrew *had* stopped using the particular
>> type of lampooning I was objecting to.
What does that prove... oh wait, I get it, you merely exercised your
right as "Supreme Arbiter of Truth" to declare that this could not have
possibly been a coincidence.
>> See how Andrew simply *cannot* tell the truth?
No, but I do see (yet again) how you love to label people who disagree
with you as liars.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+ Judy Stein * TM Blowhard Fiend * jstein@panix.com +
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Please note that I left your correct e-mail address in my new parody
version of your sig. That way, if any other TM Blowhard Fiends want to
contact you via e-mail, or should they desire to pay you for your expert
advice in how to become a TM Blowhard Fiend, they will not be thwarted
by an invalid address.
Michael Reuss (remove nospam from address to reply by e-mail)
Honorary Kid