Re: Freedom Forum report on the State of the First Amendment

[Colin Rafferty <craffert@ml.com>]

Lizard  writes:
> At 12:55 PM 12/23/97 -0500, Colin Rafferty wrote:
>> Freedom of expression is not the same as freedom of oppression.

> How is someone 'oppressed' by my choosing not to deal with him for some
> reasons, but not for other reasons? Either way, he does not get my services.

> I refuse to hire you because you are black -- you are oppressed.
> I refuse to hire you because you're an Aquarius and my astrologer told me
> not to hire Aquarians -- you are not oppressed.
> I refuse to hire you because you're a Republican and I'm a Democrat, and I
> don't think we'll work well together -- you are not oppressed.

> But in all cases, you are not hired.

> Explain the logic of this to me.

The logic is about patterns of discrimination of society and the State
acting as a social engineer to remove the patterns.

It is about basic human decency, and giving a person a fighting chance.

If society, in general, discriminated against people with freckles, it
is likely that it would be made illegal.

> (Yes, it is perfectly legal to not hire someone based on star sign,
> political affiliation, or having freckles.)

> No human being has a right to compel service from another human being.

No majority group has a right to discriminate against a minority.

You prove that you know The Truth, and I'll prove that I know The Truth.

> If I
> do not wish to engage in trade with you, that's my right. Would you be less
> oppressed if I just closed up shop and refused to trade with ANYONE? 

Oppression is done by a society.  It can only be stopped by acting
against the individuals in the society that are doing the oppressing.

> The issue here is not expression, but association.

That's a good point.  However, the alternate doesn't have the same
rhythm:

Freedom of association is not the same as freedom of oppression.

-- 
Colin