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

Palladium@aol.com Palladium@aol.com
Tue, 03 Oct 2000 13:37:47 EDT

Content-Type:  text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Content-Type: message/rfc822
Content-Disposition: inline

Return-Path: <Palladium@aol.com>
Received: from  web47.aolmail.aol.com (web47.aolmail.aol.com []) by air-id08.mx.aol.com (v76_r1.3) with ESMTP; Tue, 03 Oct 2000 13:35:01 -0400
Date: Tue, 03 Oct 2000 13:35:01 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: quoted-printable
X-Mailer: Unknown
Message-ID: <ea.b878bc2.270b72c5@aol.com>

<<Previous posts that you were supporting advocated using such lawsuits to
 force the removal of books.  If people are going to be sued for what they
 write, then usually part of that suit is intended to force the removal of
 that material from publication.>>

Ah, go back and read your earlier posts CAREFULLY (careful journalist that y=
ou are). That wasn't me. I never said their views should be "suppressed," bu=
t that a libel suit might be one means of discrediting them.=20

<<Why?  If we have two books and one says that Apollo was faked and another
 says that the Soviets beat Apollo to the moon, don't they equally insult
 all of the "brilliant and hard-working people" who built Apollo?  How come
 one person can save himself from a lawsuit by saying "I was only writing

You can't possibly be serious. Fictionalizing events is a time-honored way o=
f vamping on history. RE: "Primary Colors" by "Anonymous." No one's claiming=
 the events depicted are true-- though they might be truer than the official=
 story. You're getting a little red in the face, there, Dwayne.

<<further, you claimed that this was an "ad hominem" attack against an
 "entire class of people."  My Latin was never all that great, but "ad
 hominem" means "to the man" and cannot be applied to an entire class of
 people. >>

ad hom=95i=95nem : Appealing to personal prejudices or emotions rather than=20=
to reason.  (Webster's II New Riverside University Dictionary)

<<But if that denier says that "all NASA employees are liars," then a
 class-action libel suit will be virtually impossible. >>

Possibly true, although I haven't any of the Apollo conspiracy stuff close e=
nough to know whether any Joe Q Jabberwockies are named in specific. If so,=20=
they might have a case, as you yourself acknowledged. I also seem to recall=20=
there's precident for libel actions by classes of people--i.e., the workers=20=
at a factory--against someone who unfairly and untruthfully maligned their w=

<<Poppycock.  The idea of using the power of the state to suppress opinions
 that you find distasteful is dangerous no matter what mechanism you
 propose, whether it be getting the PTA to pull "Catcher in the
 Rye" off the school library shelf or a libel suit to force the
 removal of a book claiming that Apollo was a hoax.  Just because you
 disagree with someone gives you no right to call for the suppression of
 their views.  A journalist would understand that.>>

There you go again-- "power of the state to suppress views." By all means, l=
et anyone express whatever view they wish, however they wish. But if their "=
views" involve an allegation of enormous wrongdoing on someone's part, let t=
hem be prepared to back it up. Or, should the Tawana Brawleys of the world b=
e allowed to slander and libel with utter impunity?