"Book burners, by the way, typically want to destroy material that is accurate. Destroying material that's libelous is not considered 'book burning.'" --Judy Stein
In the following alt.meditation.transcendental post, Michael Reuss tries again (without apparent success) to make Judy see why she has no right to set herself up as the arbiter of true or allowable speech:
...except when it's Judy Stein's sig being lampooned by one of Judy
Stein's most vocal detractors. Then all bets are off....
> That's why, for
>instance, I don't threaten to sue Andrew for the defamation on
>his Web page or in his posts to alt.m.t and sci.skeptic.
I get the feeling that you would if you could.
> But the action I'm taking against Andrew has nothing to do with
>*disagreement* with his speech, it has to do with protecting my
>business. You keep getting these confused.
No I don't. I saw your lame threat, and I read your rationalizations. To
me, given your history with Andrew, they added up to nothing more than a
means for you to "beat" Andrew in a debate.
>> Suing people changes peoples patterns. It should not be done or
>> even threatened frivolously. If you'll recall, I once said something
>> similar to Andrew.
> That's right. Frivolous threats are bad and wrong.
Your threat was frivolous.
>> Judy, stop threatening to sue people for lampooning you.
> I have never threatened to sue anyone for lampooning me, Michael.
Yes you did. You threatened Andrew. You even admit his sig parody was
recognizable to you as a lampoon.
>> That is a stupid use of that particular type of threat. There was
>> no chance that someone would mistake your business for Andrew's
>> lampooning of your sig.
> With regard to the *specific* lampoon I'm objecting to, I
>disagree, and so does my lawyer.
Then stop debating about it here on the newsgroup, pay your lawyer, and
take your assinine complaining about a *specific* lampoon into court.
Your lawyer will make money, Andrew's lawyer will make money, you'll
lose, mabye even be laughed out of court. If I were your lawyer, I'm not
sure I'd invite the stain of your complaint to become a blot on my
record, but it's a (mostly) free country.
> It isn't the lampoon per se
>that's the problem. As I noted (and you've failed to address),
>precisely the same opinion of me (or worse) could be (and has
>been) expressed in any number of different ways *without*
>potentially infringing on the name of my business.
This is so lame it's pathetic. There is no damage to your business from
Andrew's parody of your sig. You'd have a difficult case to make to say
that a potential client failed to communicate with you because he/she
looked for your e-mail address in a post made by somebody other than
you, who was obviously lampooning you on a whole variety of other
subjects, as well as in the false .sig.
Threatening to take this to court is simply stupid, Judy. Get that
through your ever-fattening skull.
> So it is not a matter of trying to prevent Andrew from expressing
>his opinion of me.
I think it's a matter of you wanting to "win" an argument with him.
> Further, as I pointed out and you've ignored, I wouldn't be suing
>for *money*, simply for a ruling that Andrew not continue to
>misuse my sig in that one particular way.
That is irrelevant. If Andrew had to defend himself against your stupid
frivolous lawsuit, he would have to pay a lawyer. He'd lose financially.
So he might be tempted to settle, even though he's clearly done you no
tort.
...[snip]... [on the retraction of the Chopra prostitute story by the WS]:
>The retraction stated, "...We are now convinced that certain
>allegations reported in that story were false....Based on
>evidence provided to us over the past year, we are now convinced
>that Dr. Chopra did not engage the services of a prostitute in
>1991. Evidence provided by Dr. Chopra's representatives has
>convinced us that someone else used a credit card with Dr.
>Chopra's name and forged Dr. Chopra's signature to charge those
>services."
Yeah, that sounds REAL believable, someone else used my credit card.
That's what I'd say if my wife found one of those receipts in my wallet.
;-)
Don't you see, Judy, that statement could have been written by Chopra
himself. That's the whole point of using lawsuits to coerce behavior.
Anything could happen in a settlement conference. I don't know what
happened in that conference. I think the idea of someone else using his
credit card to go buy a hooker is baloney. Damn convenient baloney.
>> As a reader of the original story, believing it to be accurate,
>> now reading apologies ordered as a result of closed meetings
>> containing lots of information to which I am NOT privy, between
>> presumably pragmatic people and their posturing lawyers, how am I
>> to know anything at all?
> Amazing. Even an abject retraction and apology by the
>publication that made the original false allegation means nothing
>to you.
That's right. You have this little coercive intervention in the story of
a lawsuit, which might have changed real "true" stories to not quite so
real "true" stories.
> What *would* convince you the accusation was false?
If the hooker retracted her statement, and said she was doing it just to
get a few moments of what passes for fame in her world, that she had a
tremendous crush on Deepak, and just wanted to get his attention, I
might believe that.
But (and here's the rub) I wouldn't be overly receptive to such a
retraction if it followed some heavy handed attempt by Chopra to sue or
otherwise harm her in some way. Now are you starting to see from where
I'm coming???
>> As a person who values a free an unfettered press, I'd rather people not
>> be threatening lawsuits except as a very last resort. They certainly
>> should not use threats of lawsuits as a debating technique, as I think
>> was the case with you.
> No, it isn't a debating technique, it's a concern for my
>business. If I were using it as a debating technique, I wouldn't
>limit my objection to that one specific type of misuse of my sig.
I think you thought you could win some points against Andrew, and you
took your best shot. Now that you look like an oppressive fool, you need
to create a whole set of rationalizations to justify in your own mind
(and to your fellow TMers), this blatant attempt at suppression of a
simple parody. Shame on you.
>>> If the people who are purportedly the staunchest defenders of
>>>free speech are in fact using it stupidly and frivolously in
>>>their own narrow, selfish interests, it gives the enemies of free
>>>speech a legitimate target to attack.
>> That's just plain stupid. Who's interests should I be pursuing through
>> the exercise of my right to speak freely?
> The interests of the people, Michael, to continue to be able to
>speak freely. Of course you can also defend free speech *wisely*
>in connection with legitimate interests of your own.
You make my point once again. Are you the one who decides who is "wise"
and who is "unwise." Who made you the Supreme Arbiter of Truth?" Oh,
that's right, you did.
>>> The principle of free
>>>speech is cheapened and weakened since its defenders are such
>>>obviously irresponsible ninnies, and then it's a lot easier to
>>>convince people new restrictions on free speech make sense.
br>
>> This kind of talk scares me. Who are these people, TMers, you, Judy?
> Er, the citizens of the United States, Michael, and their
>representatives in the government.
I'm a citizen of the U.S. I value the ability to freely lampoon
blowhards such as yourself. I think the courts will ultimately agree
with me (and with Andrew, should it ever come to that), because the
Constitution protects exactly the kind of speech you're threatening to
sue over.
> One more time: The enemies of free speech (such as, for instance,
>those who managed to get legislation passed regulating speech on
>the Internet in the interests of "decency"--fortunately declared
>unconstitutional in court, but there's a new campaign brewing)
>can use frivolous objections to lawsuits for defamation
[or frivolous lawsuits or threats of lawsuits]
>or other *illegal* speech to impose tighter restrictions on
>free speech generally, by convincing people the principle as
>it stands is too broad.
Then go challenge those people in court. Andrew's not one of them. Leave
Andrew alone.
> I don't know what the poll numbers are, but there is a
>significant percentage of voters who *agree* that speech on the
>Internet should be regulated. Otherwise the legislators would
>never have dared to pursue this.
Then argue against these restrictions. Stop adding fuel to the fire by
threatening to sue for a parody!
> To state it more generally: if there is *confusion* generated
>about the principle of free speech, people's commitment to it is
>weakened. Confusion is generated, for instance, when someone who
>exercises their right to take action against illegal speech is
>denounced by people like you as an enemy of free speech.
You're very close to making the implication that any speech that
confuses people is therefore unethical. This is insane. If people are
confused (and I don't deny there are many of them, (you included
apparently)) well that's NOT a problem for which the remedy is the
restriction of the free speech rights of others!
> Obviously such a denunciation is wrong. That allows the enemies
>of free speech to paint those who are presumably its staunchest
>defenders as fools, and that then extends in people's minds to
>all those who defend free speech. The boundaries of the
>principle becomes blurred, and when they're blurred, it's easier
>to draw those boundaries tighter, to make *more* kinds of speech
>illegal.
This is plain stupid. My rights end where you get blurred and confused?
I don't think so. If you think you're capable, teach these dummies how
to follow an argument, or why they should value free speech even if they
don't yet understand it. Don't blame me for their ignorance.
>> If you see any of these bastards who would restrict all of our free
>> speech rights, simply because of a cute little lampooning of your sig,
>> you tell these people that I said they can all kiss my ass.
> Somewhere along the line you've completely lost the thread,
>Michael. The lampooning of my sig has nothing to do with it.
Bullshit. The sig lampooning is the thing you are threatening to sue
for, the thing you want restricted. It is you that wants to restrict yet
another particular item of speech. The sad thing is, .sig parodies
happen all the time on Usenet, and in much more perverse and defamatory
ways than what Andrew did to yours, and I've never seen you make it an
issue. I think you just got mad at him and lashed out.
> It's your *objections* to my taking action against a misuse of my
>sig that could have a negative effect on my business,
Oh, now it's MY fault!? This just gets better and better. Have your
lawyer send me an e-mail....
> and other
>such frivolous objections to the right to take action against
>illegal speech, that could empower the enemies of free speech.
Then go fight against these enemies of free speech. Stop blaming me for
enticing them. I refuse to accept responsibility for their authoritarian
agendas. They got their agendas at church or from their Gurus or from
L.Ron Hubbard. They did not get them from me.
> If you really doubt there are people who want to restrict free
>speech, I suggest you check with the ACLU.
I know damn well there are many people that want to suppress free
speech. I want you to see that when you threatened Andrew for his
parody, you became one of them. I see it as my job to get you out of
that particular cult...
Michael Reuss
Honorary Kid
Previously Posted:
Subject: Re: The cluelessness of Michael Reuss
Date: Thu, 16 Jul 1998 05:52:12 GMT
From: mreuss@rmi.nospam.net (Michael Reuss)
Organization: None
Newsgroups: alt.meditation.transcendental, sci.skeptic
