Fwd: Re: [FPSPACE] from Holocaust denial to Apollo denial

[Palladium@aol.com]

------_Part_39d9ee56-00a4-2544-010203040506
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit



------_Part_39d9ee56-00a4-2544-010203040506
Content-Type: message/rfc822
Content-Disposition: inline

Return-Path: <Palladium@aol.com>
Received: from  web45.aolmail.aol.com (web45.aolmail.aol.com [205.188.161.6]) by air-id09.mx.aol.com (v76_r1.3) with ESMTP; Tue, 03 Oct 2000 10:27:12 -0400
Date: Tue, 03 Oct 2000 10:27:12 EDT
From: Palladium@aol.com
Subject:Re: [FPSPACE] from Holocaust denial to Apollo denial
To: <wayneday@gwis2.circ.gwu.edu>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Unknown
Message-ID: <74.38d1587.270b46c0@aol.com>

Bravo, DDAY! I was so looking forward to your response--

<<So?  We call our politicians liars all the time.  Polls show that up to 80
 percent of the American public thinks that the CIA killed John
 F. Kennedy.>>

And, uh, this is a GOOD thing?

<<Perhaps 40 percent believe that the government is covering up
 the crash of a flying saucer at Roswell. Should the people named in these
 conspiracy theories take their accusers to court?>>

If they feel they've been damaged, yes. And I believe this has happened, in the case of Jim Garrison, who pointed fingers, named names and actually filed ludicrous charges against alleged JFK conspirators-- I believe some of these people countersued once they'd been exonerated, and won.

<<Should books about JFK
 conspiracies be banned from bookstores?  Should books about Roswell be
 banned as well?  Should the courts force the removal of websites on these
 subjects?  What makes Apollo any different?>>

Gee, I read back through my posting, and I don't believe I anywhere advocated that anyone's books should be BANNED. I said, "anyone who slanders an entire class of people with a ridiculous big lie had better be prepared to back up the charge with hard facts."

If you, say, went around claiming that an entire high school football team sexually assaulted your daughter, and then the school and community conspired to cover the whole incident up, and you can get a publisher to print a book detailing this charge, by all means DO so. Just be sure you have REAL evidence to back up the charge, when you're dragged into court for libel. Saying, "well, in my opinion this really happened" won't cut it, nor should it.

(Anyone remember Tawana Brawley?)

<<Now suppose, just suppose, that someone wrote a book about the Soviet
 Union beating the Americans to the moon back in 1969.  Wouldn't that book
 be considered an insult to the "brilliant and hard-working people" who
 worked on Apollo?  Should they be able to seek legal redress too?  Should
 that book be banned?  Its author sued?>>

Hmmm, interesting case, that, and entirely hypothetical, I'm sure. Of course if we're talking about fiction here, all bets are off.

<< This is a mis-reading of US libel law.>>  

No it's not-- the precident has been clearly established that public persons fall into a different category than private, mainly because of the extreme difficulty in proving malicious intent. But your elucidation is appreciated.

<<Then allow me to make a modest proposal:

 Rather than dragging the authors of unpopular books into court so that
 they can be sued and effectively silenced (after all, the courts are
 already jam-packed as it is), what we should do is create a more
 democratic process.  Perhaps once every two years, in addition to voting
 for candidates for national elections, we could also hold votes as to
 which books to ban.  Unfortunately, I don't think that your concern that
 "untruthful" books are being published can be translated into simple
 action--what are we going to do, ban all fiction?  No, instead, it should
 be a simple ballot initiative:  X number of signatures gets a book on the
 list for voting.  Then, if it generates more than, say, 10% votes against
 it, we can ban its sale in stores, remove it from libraries, and have some
 nice bonfires.  (I go for 10% because there are lots of books that offend
 small minorities very significantly, and we need to be aware of their
 concerns.)

Gee, DDAY, you're cute when you get on a good rant (remind me a bit of Dennis Miller).

Again, no one's talking about making bonfires of books (nice attempt at the classic "cultural Nazism" straw man, there). Just as anyone has the right to say or print whatever they want, anyone also has the right to file suit if they feel they've been damaged.  We're not talking about state censorship, we're talking about individuals using the legal system to ensure accountability. 

Pointing a finger and screaming "Nazi! Book burner! Advocate of Censorship!" is last refuge of the sloppy, sensationalistic, or agenda-driven journalist.  

(DDAY's anticipated response: "Yeah? So sue me!")


DSMichaels


------_Part_39d9ee56-00a4-2544-010203040506--