Previous message:
Univ of NC student's father replies to Politech: "abusive and libelous"
http://www.politechbot.com/p-02961.html
*********
Date: Sat, 22 Dec 2001 16:00:39 -0500
From: "Robin (Roblimo) Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
CC: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED],
[EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED],
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Univ of NC student's father replies to Politech: "abusive
and libelous"
Let me get this straight:
1) University student sends out fairly typical "ultra-liberal line"
broadcast email about U.S. mideast policy, Bush's election, support of
Israel, and so on to a bunch of people at the University she attends.
2) Conservative professor responds negatively to student's email, forwards
it along with his response to yet more people.
3) More email on both sides and from third parties: Flamefest!
4) Student's daddy sues mean old professor.
Have I got it right so far?
If so, then I ought to sue thousands of people who have attacked me in
widely-distributed emails or on public online message boards; who don't
like my choice of operating systems; who believe I write poorly and
shouldn't hold the job I do; who feel that what I write is "biased" in one
direction or another (the direction in which I am allegedly biased
depending heavily on the individual reader's perception, of course.); or
just don't like me, and feel that calling me a moron is the height of wit.
You can argue that I am a bit of a "public figure" so that I must accept
these attacks as part of life. And I do accept them -- and I have many more
"fans" than detractors, so the negative people don't bother me. If you
state any kind of strong opinion in front of a heterogeneus group of
people, some of them are going to disagree with you, whether that group is
composed of millions of Internet users or several dozen students and
faculty members at a single University.
The only difference between Rosa Fuller and me that I can see is one of
scale: my opinions get read by more people than hers. But she put her
opinions out onto the network, just as I do, and must accept the fact that
whenever she does that, some people are going to react negatively to what
she says.
ObDisclaimer: Rosa Fuller and her father, Dennis Fuller, are the most
wonderful people on earth and everything they say, ever, is true, and
anyone who disagrees with either of them, in any way, is wrong. (I say this
because I don't want them to sue me.)
Speaking solely as an individual, not in my
capacity as editor of several popular
news/discussion Web sites,
- Robin "Roblimo" Miller
*********
Subject: Re: FC: Univ of NC student's father replies to Politech: "abusive
and libelous"
Date: Sat, 22 Dec 2001 17:47:10 -0800
From: David Lawrence <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Declan McCullagh" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Lili Von Schtupp" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Dave Mark" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Dennis,
E-mail threats?
Abuse?
Libel?
Questionable ethics?
Even grammatical errors?
And you're accusing someone *else* of sophistry?
While we're all here on the show mildly amused at you, your daughter and
your claims (and actually knocking back some popcorn while rooting for
the windmill as you both tilt at it), slowly backing away lest you throw
a thesaurus in our general direction, could you point out to me what
"abusive" names the good professor called your daughter in that e-mail?
Oh, wait...he didn't.
Your daughter wound a trail of logic that led directly from the events of
September 11th back to the conclusion that it was the United States that
was at fault (apparently, the world began in the mid-1980's). Your
daughter's side? She stated it quite eloquently to us all in her e-mail.
With the horrible deaths that occurred here in DC, and in New York, all
because purely evil people did a purely evil thing, you'd think there
would be bigger fish to fry in the world, but to be provocative just for
the sake of provoking is what some people love to do.
The truth is: your daughter has an opinion, and she stated it, with an
evangelical call to action. The professor had an opinion, and he stated
it, and met that call to action. And now, you and your daughter are
crying victim where no victimization occurred. Sad.
Sad, because you're acting like children instead of adults, and you're
wasting everyone's time with this nonsense. Your daughter is in no way
constrained from continuing her attempts at demonizing the United States
supposed hegemony, the media's supposed chauvinism, etc., and the
professor, and the rest of us, should in no way be prohibited from
responding, in agreement or not.
What's going on here is that, petulantly, you'd like your baby girl to be
able to spew rhetoric uninterrupted and unchallenged. Her call to action
was met with opposition; welcome to the world of democracy. The First
Amendment is not meant just for the first to speak - it protects everyone
in the conversation. No one's stopping your daughter from speaking, and
if you value the tenets of our system of government, you wouldn't attempt
to try to bastardize the legal system into trying to stop the good
professor from the same freedom.
I, for one, am looking forward to the day when a judge looks sternly down
over his bifocals at you and throws you and your daughter out of whatever
courtroom into which you weasel your way. Let's hope common sense
prevails and it never gets that far.
Thanks for giving me much fun on my radio show. Happy holidays.
David Lawrence
Host, Online Tonight
(heard on WBT AM&FM in Charlotte, clear as a bell in Wilmington)
http://online-tonight.com
*********
To: "Dennis Fuller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: FC: Univ of NC student's father replies to Politech: "abusive
and libelous"
From: Mike Coleman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 23 Dec 2001 14:44:26 -0600
> FIRE has recently focused its attention on my daughter's request to see some
> of Dr. Adams' e-mail letters as public business under the Public Records Law
> of the State of North Carolina.
I don't know enough about the case to say whether or not the professor may
have overstepped, but the request to access his personal email seems clearly
unethical and beyond the pale. Insisting on this leads people to believe the
rest of your case is without merit, I think.
Mike
*********
Date: Sun, 23 Dec 2001 13:36:22 -0800
From: Paul Schreiber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: FC: Univ of NC student's father replies to Politech:
"abusive and libelous"
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[as usual, permission to repost -- without the bracketed text -- granted,
but I doubt this is sufficiently insightful. :)]
Let me get this straight: prof and student get into a flame war, and in
come FIRE, the university brass, the girl's father.
All this because the girl was told she was "intentionally divise" and had
"bad speech."
I've been called far, far worse things on the Internet.
Get a life, people.
Paul
*********
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 23 Dec 2001 08:56:58 -0800
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Rosa Fuller
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Email from (Prof.) Mike Adams
At 09:45 AM on 9/17/01
Mike Adams wrote:
To: Rosa Fuller
From: Mike Adams
Subject: Re: In Dedication to An Undivided Humanity
I will certainly forward this to others and I hope they will respond. My
response will be brief as your "statement" is undeserving of serious
consideration. Your claimed interest in promoting rational discussion is
dishonest. It is an intentionally divisive diatribe. The Constitution
protects your speech just as it has protected bigoted, unintelligent, and
immature speech for many years. But, remember, when you exercise your
rights you open yourself up to criticism that is protected by the same
principles. I sincerely hope that your bad speech serves as a catalyst for
better speech by others.
Mike Adams
dear professor adams:
i hope i am addressing my comments to the correct professor adams since the
posting above did not include an email address.
in my several years as a student in california universities, on the
undergraduate and graduate level, i have grown accustomed to professors
supporting their statements, opinions and positions with facts and reasoned
argument. your message makes several emotional and biased claims, none
of which are supported by anything but raw, biased opinion.
1. you state that Ms. Fuller's statement is "undeserving of serious
consideration." Why? certainly your response to her is quite serious.
2. you state that her "claimed interest in promoting rational discussion
is dishonest." What are your reasons for this conclusion?
3. you characterize her statement as "an intentionally divisive
diatribe." How and why?
you refer to the constitutional protection of her right of free speech as
supporting the comments of "bigoted, unintelligent, and immature speech for
many years." which defames the constitution and the legal system by
ignoring the fact that the right of free speech supports many other forms
of communication essential to a free society for even many more
years. i'm sure you know that your bigoted, unintelligent and immature
speech is being protected, also.
you remind Ms Fuller that when she exercises her right of free speech she
opens herself up to criticism protected by the constitution. which we
all know is true. but you state this fact solely to give yourself
permission to characterize her exercise of freedom of speech as
"bad." and then make the fatuous comment that you hope her "bad" speech
serves as a catalyst to others to produce "better" speech. is that the
way you teach, giving "bad" in the classroom in the hope your students will
produce "better"?
for a professor to come down as hard as you did on this young lady for
exercising her right of free speech is disgraceful. what did you hope to
accomplish by your scurrilous diatribe? naturally, you have a right to your
opinion. but bullying an undergraduate student with the biases of a
professor over a political matter is not seemly, nor is it rational. you
are at University of North Carolina to teach, not harm students. and,
while your posting is an exercise of free speech, it also exercises
intimidation, cruelty, prejudice and unprofessional self-indulgence on your
part.
a man who exercises such poor judgement, is unable to support his
authoritarian opinions with facts, and uses argument ad hominem to the
exclusion of all else, cannot teach students on a level that becomes the
profession of teaching. in your case, her "bad" speech, instead of
producing "better" speech as produced a lemon from you -- a message of such
unnecessary cruelty and immaturity that beside your comment her letter
looks like great literature.
your message is all feeling, no thought, and irrational. i have never
seen such a terrible piece of writing come from a professor in my life.
R
*********
Date: Sat, 22 Dec 2001 15:22:50 -0500
From: "Larry D. Burton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Declan McCullagh" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: FC: Univ of NC student's father replies to Politech: "abusive
and libelous"
I think Mr. Fuller needs to let little Rosa learn how to handle
criticism on her own. I would think that a senior university student
with such a high grade point average should be able to do that.
Larry D. Burton
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
*********
Date: Sat, 22 Dec 2001 16:07:06 -0500 (EST)
From: elijah wright <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Declan McCullagh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: FC: Univ of NC student's father replies to Politech: "abusive
and libelous"
> > I will certainly forward this to others and I hope they will respond. My
> >response will be brief as your "statement" is undeserving of serious
> >consideration. Your claimed interest in promoting rational discussion is
> >dishonest. It is an intentionally divisive diatribe. The Constitution
> >protects your speech just as it has protected bigoted, unintelligent, and
> >immature speech for many years. But, remember, when you exercise your
> >rights you open yourself up to criticism that is protected by the same
> >principles. I sincerely hope that your bad speech serves as a catalyst for
> >better speech by others.
First of all, thanks for the long volley of crucial materials, Declan.
The materials produced by both sides were very useful in constructing a
position regarding this matter - which, as I suspect we all know, is very
complicated.
Something to keep in mind is that this case has occasionally been
constructed by media sources as one of the violation of a faculty member's
right to free speech. That no longer seems to be the case, given the
materials attached to previous messages. False Cause, i believe.
It seems, from reading the original letter that I've left intact above,
that the first "mistake" made by either party was Dr. Adams reply to the
student. Such a reply is completely inappropriate and unprofessional in
tone - something that I think most other teachers at the university level
(including the vast majority of the faculty I work with) would agree upon.
It implies, certainly, that the student is "bigoted, unintelligent, and
immature." These things are not stated explicitly, but the tone is such
that they can easily be (perhaps mis-? - or perhaps not!)interpreted.
Given the actions that followed, we are left to wonder.
It might have been completely appropriate to note to the student that he
was in a great deal of disagreement, and that he professionally disagrees,
but those comments should have been kept quite distinct from those
relating to his position of power as a faculty member with influence over
the grades of the student being communicated with. Personal opinion and
professional speech are not distinctly separated, in this case.
This reply should have warranted a case with the faculty grievance
committee at UNCW, or with their ombudsman. I can easily find no
information about either entity from the Web - I am not even able to
deduce the existence of such entities from the web. :)
I find it curious that the case did not immediately draw attention from
faculty oversight councils and the UNCW faculty senate. This should have
been exceptionally concerning to them.
I suppose that it is possible that their judiciary or grievance process
did not adequately handle the situation, causing it to be necessary for
the involvement of outside legal counsel.
It seems completely believable that a grievance committee or a "real"
court would find it useful to subpoena a record of Dr. Adams' email
account in order to consider the depth of his wrongdoing. If, in fact, he
communicated to the "College Republicans" that they should take action
(and any comment attached to his forwarded email could be construed as
such a statement) - well, he might incur a bit of legal trouble from that
matter, as well. It takes a very serious event to cause campus police to
interview a student; being the root cause behind such an interview/event
is not something to look lightly upon.
Arguing that the "first amendment rights" of an individual have been
violated is insufficient when the person being investigated appears to
have committed what may be a criminal act, or at least one that will
endanger their continued employment by the institution.
I invite replies.
elijah wright
*********
Date: Sat, 22 Dec 2001 16:47:00 -0500
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
From: Larry Poos <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: IRT: Univ of NC student's father replies to Politech: "abusive
and libelous"
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For the full text of the original message see:
http://www.politechbot.com/p-02961.html
For the full text of the original message see:
http://www.politechbot.com/p-02961.html
Being "plain folk" but believing myself to be a reasonable person;
I have read Dr. Adams initial email and find in my opinion;
1) He stated he would forward the original email as requested.
2) That his response would be to the point and short.
3) He made to statements of opinion as to the content of the email
in question.
4) He made a veiled statement that the author had the right under
the constitution to make such statements.
5) He made a statement that along with the right to make such
statements comes the responsibility to recognize that other will
disagree and to accept that fact.
6) He made a statement of opinion that the speech though
disagreeable in his eyes would further discussion he belives is is
more appropriate.
I see no name calling or find any libel in this message.
Upon reading Dennis Fuller's message to Declan McCullagh find in my
opinion;
1) It is full of innuendo as to Dr. Adams motives and political
agenda (which in my opinion has nothing to do with this matter.)
2) It brings into question Dr. Adams teaching style (again not even
close to the matter in question.)
3) Quoting:
>My wife, Rosa's mother, is currently a UNCW professor of
>philosophy and director of the University's Center for Teaching
>Excellence. We immediately saw Dr. Adams' abusive letter to Rosa
>as a violation of professional ethics.
This says to me that the is some other conflict at the heart of this
situation.
4) Dr. Fuller disagrees with FIRE focusing on the invasion of
privacy the the State Public Records Law allows, as his his right to
do. Though in my opinion this is a subject that must be reviewed and
updated in light of today's technology. I wonder how he would feel
if I request copies of all the letters he and his wife have written
using University materials and or posted via the University mail
system as in my opinion the same Public Records Law apply to them.
As my sainted grandfather use to tell me, "If you can't take the
heat, air condition the kitchen or supper will never get cooked".
These people need to take their wounded pride and agenda somewhere
else then get a life instead of living off the taxpayers as
academician's
Larry D. Poos
[System Consultant]
LTAD Enterprises
E-MAIL:
(Primary) [EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Alternate) [EMAIL PROTECTED]
*********
Date: Sun, 23 Dec 2001 15:08:01 -0500
From: Nick Bretagna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: "a1me@Home" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
CC: zDeclan/Politech <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: ??? Abusive and libellous ???
OK, according to Declan, this is the extent of Prof. Adams's response:
>Email from (Prof.) Mike Adams
>
>At 09:45 AM on 9/17/01 Mike Adams wrote:
>
>To: Rosa Fuller
>From: Mike Adams
>Subject: Re: In Dedication to An Undivided Humanity
>
>I will certainly forward this to others and I hope they will respond. My
>response will be brief as your "statement" is undeserving of serious
>consideration. Your claimed interest in promoting rational discussion is
>dishonest. It is an intentionally divisive diatribe. The Constitution
>protects your speech just as it has protected bigoted, unintelligent, and
>immature speech for many years. But, remember, when you exercise your
>rights you open yourself up to criticism that is protected by the same
>principles. I sincerely hope that your bad speech serves as a catalyst for
>better speech by others.
>
>Mike Adams
Assuming the above is a true reproduction of his words (please indicate
otherwise if not so):
While, in all honesty, I do agree with some, if not many, of your
daughters' sentiments about the actions of the government, the above does
not classify as abusive by any reasonable standard of the term. It is
negative, and does not go into detail regarding his reasons for referring
to them as "bigoted" and "unintelligent" (He probably felt, like me, that
his reasons were obvious. That does not mean those were correct, by any
means, but the reasons were clear).
Further, this is not, strictly speaking, an ad-hominem comment -- he did
not call HER a bigot or stupid, just that the speech was (even the most
intelligent person can say and do stupid things, and there is a difference
between wisdom and intelligence, as well). This is little more than an
opening sally in a commentary, one that could easily come from someone who
was pissed off (Sorry, no surprise there) and not in the mood to go into
detail.
Free Speech is about being able to speak freely. Actions which make people
"watch their words" (other than direct criticism) are generally dangerous,
represent a "chilling effect", and hence undesirable.
Snooping on someone else's mail is exactly such an action. Mail should be a
deeply protected commodity.
Your daughter and he both were speaking freely. If one is to err, it must
be on the side of speaking, not suppression --
"A function of free speech under our system of government is to INVITE
DISPUTE. It may indeed best serve its high purposes when it induces a
condition of unrest, creates dissatisfaction with conditions as they are,
or even stirs people to anger. Speech is often provocative and
challenging. It may strike at prejudices and preconceptions and have
profound unsettling effects as it presses for acceptance of an idea."
- Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas -
"The only social order in which freedom of speech is secure is the one in
which it is secure for everyone... and, as those who call for censorship
in the name of the oppressed ought to recognize, it is never the oppressed
who determine the bounds of the censorship. Their power is limited to
legitimizing the idea of censorship."
- Aryeh Neier -
>Calling a student abusive names, libeling and inciting threats against her
>is a teaching style? I have taught philosophy at a number of universities.
Well, first off, he did not call her any names, as pointed out above. This
is a misrepresentation on your part.
Second -- ad-hominem arguments in a class? Philosophy teachers?
BWAAAAhahahaha! The most ad-hominem professor I ever had taught a so-called
class in "Ethics", wherein he ridiculed anyone who disagreed with any of
his own opinions (hint: he was a philosophy professor!). Such behavior by
professors is far from abnormal on campuses all across this country, if my
own experience and (non-trivial) observations are correct. Certainly I
would bet few students will go through 4 years of college without having an
anecdotal tale of being verbally and inappropriately ridiculed during a
class by some professor. I also doubt such abuse would be limited to coming
from a particularly narrow stripe of professors. Professors are just as
subject to abusing their authority and puffing up their egos as anyone else
on this planet, and rare indeed is the person with sufficient self-image
that they never need to do so (I am conscious of the tendency, and will ack
there are times when I do it before I catch myself - this despite fitting
Camus' definition of "intellectual" quite well)
>The articles it recently posted on its web site falsely state that my
>daughter "blamed the United States" for the terrorist attacks on September 11.
Sorry, this is not an incorrect statement of her words, unless the
repetition of her e-mail in the Politech ML was inaccurate. Certainly she
was more specific, and condemned the terrorists themselves, but I certainly
read that she feels that it is/was the US at fault, for reasons I actually
agree with her on, in many ways -- as a Libertarian, I find many of the
actions of my Government to be deplorable (I do find myself relentlessly
amused how someone, typical of people who write like your daughter, if not
of her personally, still want the Government to do more things, imagining
that, somehow, more government powers -- over the people and their actions
-- will somehow improve things -- the failure of reasoning and extension of
concept this takes are astounding and downright mystifying).
Her reaction, in some ways, suggests that she is one of those people. There
is, to me, no reason to respond with appeals to authority here -- if she
did not like his response, she had one of two actions --
1) shut up, if she didn't want the heat of an open dispute with a faculty
member in her educational "record"/experience
2) take him on, publicly. Criticize his response, much as you have, as
being without ration or definition. Ridicule him with logic by being better
than he is
(theoretically, she could also have taken him on anonymously, with
remailers, and so shed some of the heat via that -- one argument for
anonymous communications that is often lost on people -- the ability to
fight someone with more power than you while avoiding their potential wrath)
>He has a conflict of interest. As a University professor, his primary
>interest is supposed to be the education of each and every University student.
Oh, come ON !!
This could easily include attempting to "convert Democrats and Liberals"
and "show them [educate them in] the error of their ways". This is no
conflict of interest -- get REAL.
The notion that you can or should avoid partisanism in political teaching
(most especially!) is prima facie absurd. It's also ludicrous, in that
Schools and Colleges and Universities (Oh, My!) are blatant bastions of
liberalism, and have been for decades, if not forever. You decry this,
apparently because you disagree with it (one presumes you largely agree
with your daughter's sentiments, among other things because you have
indicated being a professor yourself), but I would lay huge odds you can go
all over the campus in question and find liberal PoVs plastered all over
other professors' doors. Shall we suppress this free speech, too?
There is, first off, a difference between expressing a preference in your
official persona and failing to expose the students to the contrary
opinions relevant to their education.
Secondly, it's highly unlikely, if you are of the minority opinion, that
your students will fail to be exposed to the opposing views. Adams is
clearly in the minority, if only by the response her letter received, by
your own description of it.
>A Platonist in mathematics and philosophy, she is skilled in the logic of
>refutation.
??? And she's quoting SOCIALISTS ????
A half-wit child could refute Socialism!!!
There are holes in it you could drive a pit mining dump truck through!
>The fact is the opposite. Of the seventeen faculty members, students and
>others to whom Rosa originally sent her statement, she received a negative
>reply from exactly one faculty member, Dr. Adams, and then a few other
>negative replies from his tiny coterie of present and past College
>Republicans. When a member of this coterie anonymously sent the entire
>UNCW faculty and staff a copy of Rosa's statement, she received exactly
>one more negative reply: an illiterate, profane and abusive letter from an
>untenured instructor. Some torrent.
OK, now, so, once more -- WHAT, exactly, did she find significant enough
in this whole thing to go bothering with complaining to the University over?
Why bother to appeal to a higher authority -- either tell him off directly
(i.e., criticize the letter for lacking rigor in the debate sense --
ridicule him for it, if need be), or IGNORE it!!?
There's just no reason to make a Federal Case out of it (in the original
sense, not the modern one -- everything is a Federal Case, these days)
>As Rosa said: "Name-calling is the nullification of discourse."
Well, since he has, by what indications I've seen, never really involved
himself in name calling (other than a few words describing her speech
itself), the only person nullifying discourse at this point is your daughter.
Why? Consider -- what professor, at her college, and other colleges, will
DARE to openly express opinions against "the majority" opinion now? Yes,
there will be a chilling effect on free speech.
As the person in the majority (as suggested by responses to your daughters'
letter!), your daughters' actions against the professor become shameful.
Why is that? Because she chose to make a Federal Case of something that is
downright trivial.
>We would welcome the opportunity to prove that Rosa is not
>"dishonest," "bigoted," "unintelligent," and "immature."
Since the professor never called her any of those things, the only thing
that is proven, and that is by your daughters' response, is that she is
both immature and lacking in WISDOM, no matter her intellectual achievements.
>You evidently believe such statements as: "you deserve to be dragged down
>the street by the hair"; you "should be hit by a baseball bat TWICE",
>amount to "core political speech" and "discussing controversial
>topics." The professionally competent authorities judged otherwise.
Equally immature comments made by other students. Note, however, the usage
of grammar: "you deserve..." and "you should...". Neither suggests that the
individual has any intention of committing the act themselves. Once more,
your daughter (likely) overreacted by referring the matter to authority.
Had any such comments continued, then certainly the police should have been
called. One exchange? She should have clearly stated in a reply: "And
further response of this type will constitute abuse -- I will consent to
even, level-headed exchanges of dissent, but threats or suggestions of of
threats is unacceptable, and will result in contacting authorities...".
And, between you and me, I would have been astounded if someone who read
her missive had not responded that way. That doesn't make it right, of
course, but certainly not atypical of humans. To expect otherwise is naive
in the extreme. Inflammatory speech does engender such responses. Once more
-- it's not right, but it's not the least bit surprising. Their grammatical
intonation said that they were almost certainly not direct threats,
however, which is the key difference between something intimidating and
something expressing extreme anger and outrage.
It's questionable whether Dr. Adams realized or intended that she receive
that sort of response, and certainly unlikely he would have approved
(without knowing him better, I cannot say - certainly his missive suggests
a measure of level-headedness despite the fact that he probably felt a
great deal of ire on the subject)
Look: She had a right to say what she said. She is even right, in many
ways. She should not, however, expect either:
1) Everyone to respond with totally rational replies, no matter what she
says or does.
2) That common sense, of aggravating a situation, will not result in strong
responses.
I have a free speech right to go through certain "obvious" parts of town
shouting "Niggers!!!" at the top of my lungs. It does not mean that I have
any business being outraged or surprised when a few of the offendees come
out and stomp my moronic, stupid ass for doing it.
Likewise, your daughter did something clearly inflammatory in a time when
emotions were likely at their height. To expect and demand nothing but
cool, measured, polite responses says, no matter how bright she is, that
she's a fool.
No surprise, she's young. The question that follows, though, is: Will she
grow out of it? Did her parents?
I close, once more, on Douglass's comment:
"A function of free speech under our system of government is to INVITE
DISPUTE. It may indeed best serve its high purposes when it induces a
condition of unrest, creates dissatisfaction with conditions as they are,
or even stirs people to anger. Speech is often provocative and
challenging. It may strike at prejudices and preconceptions and have
profound unsettling effects as it presses for acceptance of an idea."
- Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas -
Again: I do not dispute, nor suggest, that your daughter is a fool because
of her positions (although it seems likely -- quoting Socialists -- geez!),
but because she apparently thought that the only responses she would or,
more importantly should get, were measured and utterly intelligent. People
aren't that way. You poke them at the wrong time and they will go for the
throat, no matter how deserving that response may be. A wise person
recognizes this, and is prepared for it. Your daughter, by her apparent
need to bring in authorities on several levels, wasn't, and was apparently
(without my being there) an excessive and inappropriate response to those
responses.
Feel free to respond, or to forward to your daughter for response
(preferred). I will be away for a week or more, so I do not guarantee an
immediate reply. No hurry is required, no matter what your response may be.
--
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Nicholas Bretagna II
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
*********
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
POLITECH -- Declan McCullagh's politics and technology mailing list
You may redistribute this message freely if you include this notice.
Declan McCullagh's photographs are at http://www.mccullagh.org/
To subscribe to Politech: http://www.politechbot.com/info/subscribe.html
This message is archived at http://www.politechbot.com/
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
