brad brace wrote:
>(The List was also denied the possibility of interacting with mo***ento.)
>Democracy is messy...
And liberty plucks justice by the nose;
The baby beats the nurse, and quite athwart
Goes all decorum.
http://www.bartleby.com/cgi-bin/texis/webinator/sitesearch/?query=liberty+justice&db=db&cmd=context&id=390dfc5ad6#hit1
Act I. Scene III. Measure for Measure. Craig, W.J., ed. 1914. The
Oxford Shakespeare
Liberty exists in proportion to wholesome restraint.
http://www.bartleby.com/cgi-bin/texis/webinator/sitesearch/?query=liberty+justice&db=db&cmd=context&id=38d4838e3ee#hit3
Daniel Webster. 1782-1852. (From Webster's Works. Boston. 1857.)
Speech at the Charleston Bar Dinner, May 10, 1847. Vol. ii. p. 393.
Rigid and expeditious justice is the first safeguard of
freedom, the basis of all ordered liberty, the vital force of
progress. It must not come to be in our Republic that it can be
defeated by the indifference of the citizen, by exploitation of the
delays and entanglements of the law, or by combinations of criminals.
Justice must not fail because the agencies of enforcement are either
delinquent or inefficiently organized.
http://www.bartleby.com/cgi-bin/texis/webinator/sitesearch/?query=liberty+justice&db=db&cmd=context&id=38d468ea1b9#hit1
Herbert Hoover: Inaugural Address. U.S. Inaugural Addresses. 1929
Okay, so Hoover enforced Prohibition, and I'm not mad for "rigid and
expeditious," -- sounds like a Garrison Keillor biscuit, -- but
there's a tight relationship between freedom and justice which cannot
be ignored.
The valued but touted anarchy of the Internet isn't compromised by
the creation and administration of rules intended to enhance civility
of discourse (sounds rough); the rude, vulgar and flippant remark by
the accused had as its closest relation the couple screaming fire in
the crowded theatre. This *** was no appropriately or even
inappropriately sharp comment, it was a spit in the face and flagrant
flaunting of imbecility. The content of the post was meaningless, and
the intent, though not "ours" to impute, was most likely "nothing
that could further." It was also slanderous toward the boek 861 web
site, malicious, rather silly and had nothing to do with either
Carol's question, the thread or any other thing of any enduring
import. Had this ** been a list member I don't think Sol would have
acted so decisively, but then had * anything to say to 'the list',
there's always a way to get through, given a will. It seems you're
beating a dead horse, brad, but I don't mean that maliciously; I just
think certain rules are vital: don't drink and drive, love thy dog,
pick up after your dog and don't drive through red lights. In a
willingness to engage in open dialogue there has to be some measure
of sanity and "positive renewing energ[y]." Without that it's just a
free for all and pretty degenerative. Freedom, equality,privacy,
entropy and evil aren't really just concepts, they're real, heaven
and hell on earth. Sol seems pretty keenly tuned to the level of
nonsense and aberration which go into making a repeat offender. I
think he acted, perhaps unilaterally, but on the side of the angels
and MADD*, also swiftly, before the list got to see the depths of
degradation possibly inflicted on us by this ( ).
The case for freedom of speech** is always questionable when it's the
KKK or bombastically narcissistic self-righteous haters and requires
protection of privacy and rights as well as a balanced approach to
gratuitous license. In "Lucky You," the journalist and novelist Carl
Hiassen tells a fast story of 2 lottery tickets, greed, determination
and some depraved thieves. He doesn't let them off easy as the
antagonists "hoist in their own petard***" in the Florida Keys. Sol
saved us such a chase and crime spree. And it's not as if capital
punishment were meted out, this was a traffic fine, no more, no
warning necessary for the nature of the violation. Look what a
tempest in a teapot the list has roiled itself to at this
administration of justice; we the Alice in Wonderland jury
narvis & ...pez wrote:
>the sentence first & then the trial
>very alice in a wonderland !!!!!!!
or more appropriately greek chorus, are just witness to a grand jury,
more akin to the 'one on one' of juvenile court than to an ex parte
judgment. Should this have come to a referendum or would it have
faded away? It was quite offensive and a slur overlooked would only
contribute to a multiplicity of other misdeeds, a wan acceptance of
personal transgression and a hardening and estrangement of the soul.
Many a scar will fade, some are lasting, quite permanent and even
mortally wounding and though this is virtual, the "undo" button is
still not transmogrifiable to real life. Uranium will eventually
break down, but wouldn't it be wonderful to be able to diffuse it
before the eons necessary for its execution. Same thing with Krypton,
Sol just cased it in lead, that's all. Should it turn out to be gold
or dust is unlikely.
Should it come to it, the appeals court isn't dysfunctional in our
quasi-utopian on line universe, it's positively bubbling, witness
this chorus. Though it's as tiresome as the case itself, there's vim
in the arguments, but without a defendant, it's a kangaroo court.
John F Kennedy, 35th US President To reservists anxious to be
released from active duty, 21 Mar 62
There is always inequity in life. Some men are killed in war
and some men are wounded, and some men are stationed in the Antarctic
and some are stationed in San Francisco. It's very hard in military
or personal life to assure complete equality. Life is unfair.
He who confuses political liberty with freedom and political
equality with similarity has never thought for five minutes about
either.
Nothing can be unconditional: consequently nothing can be free.
Liberty means responsibility. That is why most men dread it.
George Bernard Shaw, Man and Superman
http://www.bartleby.com/cgi-bin/texis/webinator/sitesearch/?query=equality+freedom&db=db&cmd=context&id=38d4693e3f#hit1
Maxims for Revolutionists. Shaw, Bernard.
Nor have we studied and perfected the means by which
government may be put at the service of humanity, in safeguarding the
health of the Nation, the health of its men and its women and its
children, as well as their rights in the struggle for existence. This
is no sentimental duty. The firm basis of government is justice, not
pity. These are matters of justice. There can be no equality or
opportunity, the first essential of justice in the body politic, if
men and women and children be not shielded in their lives, their very
vitality, from the consequences of great industrial and social
processes which they can not alter, control, or singly cope with.
Society must see to it that it does not itself crush or weaken or
damage its own constituent parts. The first duty of law is to keep
sound the society it serves. Sanitary laws, pure food laws, and laws
determining conditions of labor which individuals are powerless to
determine for themselves are intimate parts of the very business of
justice and legal efficiency.
http://www.bartleby.com/cgi-bin/texis/webinator/sitesearch/?query=equality+and+justice&db=db&cmd=context&id=38d468eabd#hit1
Woodrow Wilson: First Inaugural Address. U.S. Inaugural Addresses. 1913
* Mothers Against Drunk Driving, for you non-USAns
** American Civil Liberties Union http://aclu.org
***
http://www.bartleby.com/cgi-bin/texis/webinator/sitesearch/?query=hoist+in+petard&db=db&cmd=context&id=391766c567e#hit1
Brewer, E. Cobham. Dictionary of Phrase & Fable. Hoist. (from
Shakespeare: Hamlet, iii. 4.)
"One man's vulgarity is another's lyric."
-- Justice John M. Harlan, Cohen v. California (1971)
"The makers of our Constitution...sought to protect Americans in
their beliefs, their thoughts, their emotions and their sensations.
They conferred as against the Government, the right to be let alone
-- the most comprehensive of the rights of man and the right most
valued by civilized men."
-- U.S. Supreme Court Justice Louis D. Brandeis, dissenting in
Olmstead v. United States (1928)
