Liberals: the guardians of free speech
EMIL CHUCK
John Switzer writes:
"More political cleansing is going on at Penn State - the opponents of a
conservative campus newspaper have once again stolen all the copies of the
paper, but this time instead of throwing them away they've burned them."
You liberals in Happy Valley should be really proud of yourselves in
displaying your tolerance for others' ideas and differing opinions.
--
Emil Thomas Chuck e...@acpub.duke.edu BSE in BME in '93
Vacation from network begins circa May 24, 1993.
New account activated circa July 1993.
Summer email until July: etc...@helix.nih.gov beginning May 16.
Andrew Shults
>"More political cleansing is going on at Penn State - the opponents of a
>conservative campus newspaper have once again stolen all the copies of the
>paper, but this time instead of throwing them away they've burned them."
>You liberals in Happy Valley should be really proud of yourselves in
>displaying your tolerance for others' ideas and differing opinions.
If there's anything worse than a conservative imposing his values on
other people, its got to be a liberal doing the same thing when his values
should include the idea of not imposing ones values on other people.
---Andrew
Andrew Shults------Political Professional in Training...@po.cwru.edu
"If the president runs into any problems, suggest that he give a speech on
American malaise." -- More advice from Bush speechwriter Jennifer Grossman
to Clinton's staff, complete list in Jan. issue of "Campaigns & Elections"
Bill Anderson
I agree. This sort of thing is repulsive, and can
only succeed in yielding the high moral ground to the right. As a
card-carrying member of the the Pinko One-World Bleeding-Heart
Lefty conspiracy, I hereby and by the powers vested in me, decry
this action.
Bill
"
Nathan Engle
>John Switzer writes:
>"More political cleansing is going on at Penn State - the opponents of a
>conservative campus newspaper have once again stolen all the copies of the
>paper, but this time instead of throwing them away they've burned them."
>You liberals in Happy Valley should be really proud of yourselves in
>displaying your tolerance for others' ideas and differing opinions.
I am proud about *my* tolerance. I'm not particularly impressed by
these conservative newspaper "opponents", but then I'm not responsible
for what they do.
--
Nathan Engle Software Juggler
Psychology Department Indiana University
na...@psygate.psych.indiana.edu nen...@silver.ucs.indiana.edu
Alan E. Asper
> If there's anything worse than a conservative imposing his values on
>other people, its got to be a liberal doing the same thing when his values
>should include the idea of not imposing ones values on other people.
>
So conservatives inherently want to impose their values on other people, and
liberals inherently do not? Huh?
I consider myself liberal, but I didn't know I had these extra moral
obligations.
:-)
Alan
George Turner
>I'm not particularly impressed by
>these conservative newspaper "opponents", but then I'm not responsible
>for what they do.
Then it's alright to burn or seize newspapers if you disagree with what the
newspapers have to say? Where do you draw the line? It's alright for liberals
to burn books but it's not alright for Nazis to burn books?
--
----------------------------------------------------------------
getu...@aer.com | one man gathers what another man spills.
Ron Asbestos Dippold
> If there's anything worse than a conservative imposing his values on
>other people, its got to be a liberal doing the same thing when his values
>should include the idea of not imposing ones values on other people.
Liberals believe other people should be free to govern themselves as
they see fit - as long as they see fit to see as liberals see fit.
You can have all the freedom you want as long as you don't feel free
to do something they don't approve of.
--
Ted Kennedy: Where was George? Answer: Dry, sober, and at home with his wife.
Ben's Dad
In article <14...@news.duke.edu>, e...@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK) writes:
> Late post: From April 29, 1993 Rush Limbaugh Show (News Item)
> John Switzer writes:
> "More political cleansing is going on at Penn State - the opponents of a
> conservative campus newspaper have once again stolen all the copies of the
> paper, but this time instead of throwing them away they've burned them."
>
> You liberals in Happy Valley should be really proud of yourselves in
> displaying your tolerance for others' ideas and differing opinions.
Not a whole lot different than U of St Thomas campus security harrasing
students for writing pro-choice slogans on the sidewalk (the security
guards forced them to clean off the chalk writings). The school defended
the security guards' action, but later admitied that there is no policy
against chalk writings on the sidewalk.
Only liberals engage in PC, if you ignore the conservative PC.
--
Russ Anderson | Disclaimer: Any statements are my own and do not reflect
------------------ upon my employer or anyone else. (c) 1993
EX-Twins' Jack Morris, 10 innings pitched, 0 runs (World Series MVP!)
Jared Dahl
|> In article <ads3.33....@po.cwru.edu> ad...@po.cwru.edu (Andrew Shults) writes:
|> > If there's anything worse than a conservative imposing his values on
|> >other people, its got to be a liberal doing the same thing when his values
|> >should include the idea of not imposing ones values on other people.
|>
|> Liberals believe other people should be free to govern themselves as
|> they see fit - as long as they see fit to see as liberals see fit.
|> You can have all the freedom you want as long as you don't feel free
|> to do something they don't approve of.
Who are these mysterious "Liberals" you guys are
always talking about? They seem to be blamed for
as many crimes as Ronny Ray-Gun is guilty of.
Before you know it, they will be blamed for losing
the America's Cup, for the failed invasion of Canada,
and for the murder of John Lennon.
They almost seem as bad as those conservative
moral-majority types who want to control TV,
radio, and everything else. Who are these
"liberals"?
Jared Dahl
Opinions are mine, not my employers
Don't send mail - I won't get it.
Alan Peters
little correlation with right/left political ideology.
Most people would classify me as liberal (I think R. Limaugh is a
boorish asshole) yet I am strongly opposed to censorship of any kind.
My views on this certainly irk most conservtives but they also
anger a fair number of my liberal friends.
I do not think the blanket statements about right/left being
pro/anti censorship are valid at all.
Alan Peters
--
Mark 'Mark' Sachs
>Liberals believe other people should be free to govern themselves as
>they see fit - as long as they see fit to see as liberals see fit.
>You can have all the freedom you want as long as you don't feel free
>to do something they don't approve of.
You caught us, Ron. All that rhetoric about being in favor of free
expression, all those protest marches in favor of being able to think
and behave however you want without harassment from government-imposed
morality -- all just a sham. The ACLU? A front. When they defended the
Nazi march in Skokie, Illinois, that was all a fake to lull people into
THINKING we like free speech. When they stated they were against the
second trial of officers in the Rodney King case, they were just kidding. Yep,
your keen insight and breathtaking ability to instantly evaluate MILLIONS
AND MILLIONS OF PEOPLE YOU'VE NEVER EVEN MET ("liberals" whom you accuse
of various evils) has led you to the terrible truth. I shake my head in awe.
Hey, guys! Looks like our evil world-domination conspiracy is off!
"...so I propose that we destroy the moon, neatly solving that problem."
[Your blood pressure just went up.] Mark Sachs IS: mbs...@psuvm.psu.edu
DISCLAIMER: If PSU knew I had opinions, they'd try to charge me for them.
Bill Anderson
: na...@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle) writes:
:
: >I'm not particularly impressed by
: >these conservative newspaper "opponents", but then I'm not responsible
: >for what they do.
:
: Then it's alright to burn or seize newspapers if you disagree with what the
: newspapers have to say? Where do you draw the line? It's alright for liberals
: to burn books but it's not alright for Nazis to burn books?
-
other liberal in this group has defended what those students
did.
Bill
-
Bill Anderson
: > If there's anything worse than a conservative imposing his values on
: >other people, its got to be a liberal doing the same thing when his values
: >should include the idea of not imposing ones values on other people.
:
: Liberals believe other people should be free to govern themselves as
: they see fit - as long as they see fit to see as liberals see fit.
: You can have all the freedom you want as long as you don't feel free
: to do something they don't approve of.
: --
Hey, thanks Ron! I've been wondering what I believed. Just one
question- can you provide some evidence that this is what liberals
believe, or are you just mouthing off? You can see how the answer
to this question would be of considerable import to me.
Bill
Bob Rahe
>Who are these mysterious "Liberals" you guys are
>always talking about? They seem to be blamed for
>as many crimes as Ronny Ray-Gun is guilty of.
..
>They almost seem as bad as those conservative
>moral-majority types who want to control TV,
>radio, and everything else. Who are these
>"liberals"?
Easy: The conservative moral majority types are the ones who WANT to
control TV. The liberals are the ones who DO control TV. Simple, huh?
(p.s. Who is this Ronny Ray-Gun everyone is blaming everything on ??? ;-))
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Bob Rahe, Delaware Tech&Comm College | AIDS, Drugs, Abortion: - |
|Internet: b...@hobbes.dtcc.edu | - Don't liberals just kill you?|
|CI$: 72406,525 Genie:BOB.RAHE |Save whales; and kill babies? |
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
George Turner
>there is no policy
>against chalk writings on the sidewalk.
Why do liberals insist on a policy on everything? Just because you think it's
cute to write something with chalk on a sidewalk does it mean that everyone
enjoys your infantile remarks? Does the college also have to have a policy
against grafiti on bathroom walls? How about spray painting on walls? Your
arguements are so childish. A bunch of liberals seize and destroy some
newspapers and that's alright because students elsewhere aren't allowed to
write on the sidewalk? Grow up!
Jared Dahl
|> In article <1993May06.1...@rchland.ibm.com> jd...@rchland.vnet.ibm.com (Jared Dahl) writes:
|> >They almost seem as bad as those conservative
|> >moral-majority types who want to control TV,
|> >radio, and everything else. Who are these
|> >"liberals"?
|>
|> Easy: The conservative moral majority types are the ones who WANT to
|> control TV. The liberals are the ones who DO control TV. Simple, huh?
If "liberals" control TV, why is Rush on? I mean, the
"mysterious liberals" hate Rush, right?
|> (p.s. Who is this Ronny Ray-Gun everyone is blaming everything on ??? ;-))
You remember Ronnie. The one with the combed-with-a-
pork-chop hair and the sleepy eyes. The one the Russkies
were afraid would fall asleep on "The Button".
Jared Dahl
|>
|> Why do liberals insist on a policy on everything?
Because it makes it easier to get convictions.
|> Just because you think it's
|> cute to write something with chalk on a sidewalk does it mean that everyone
|> enjoys your infantile remarks? Does the college also have to have a policy
|> against grafiti on bathroom walls? How about spray painting on walls? Your
|> arguements are so childish.
WAAAH! Childish liberal won't argue fair!! WAHHHH!
|> A bunch of liberals seize and destroy some
|> newspapers and that's alright because students elsewhere aren't allowed to
|> write on the sidewalk? Grow up!
Those EVIL liberals seized and destroyed valuable
STUDENT PUBLISHED NEWSPAPERS!! OH THE HORROR!!
Of course if it was the local commie-lib student
magazine I would support it.
gar...@ingres.com
>r...@mahogany126.cray.com (Ben's Dad) writes:
>>there is no policy
>>against chalk writings on the sidewalk.
>
>Why do liberals insist on a policy on everything? Just because you think it's
>write on the sidewalk? Grow up!
Do you bother reading the whole post before you reply?
>----------------------------------------------------------------
>getu...@aer.com | one man gathers what another man spills.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Time and space are modes by which we think and not Garrett Johnson
conditions in which we live." - A. Einstein Gar...@Ingres.com
"Whoso would be a man, must be a nonconformist." - R.W. Emerson
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ron Asbestos Dippold
>Hey, thanks Ron! I've been wondering what I believed. Just one
>question- can you provide some evidence that this is what liberals
>believe, or are you just mouthing off? You can see how the answer
>to this question would be of considerable import to me.
Still straining to make me take you seriously, eh? You wouldn't know
an import if it shot up your ass and did internal damage. You're fun
to play with, though. Neener neener.
Freedom of speech isn't something everybody should be allowed to have.
-- Tony Hartin, International Socialist Organization
Some form of 'censorship' is unavoidable and it fosters freedom of speech.
-- Ed "Ignorance is Strength" Nilges
--
666i: The Imaginary Friend of the Beast
Russ Anderson
In article <rdippold.736709859@qualcom>, rdip...@qualcomm.com (Ron "Asbestos" Dippold) writes:
> In article <ads3.33....@po.cwru.edu> ad...@po.cwru.edu (Andrew Shults) writes:
> > If there's anything worse than a conservative imposing his values on
> >other people, its got to be a liberal doing the same thing when his values
> >should include the idea of not imposing ones values on other people.
>
> Liberals believe other people should be free to govern themselves as
> they see fit - as long as they see fit to see as liberals see fit.
As opposed to conservatives who believe other people should be free to
govern themselves as they see fit - as long as they see fit to see as
conservatives see fit.
> You can have all the freedom you want as long as you don't feel free
> to do something they don't approve of.
Like possess marijuana.
Russ Anderson
In article <geturner....@aer.com>, getu...@aer.com. (George Turner) writes:
> r...@mahogany126.cray.com (Ben's Dad) writes:
> >there is no policy
> >against chalk writings on the sidewalk.
Returning the full paragraph for context:
} }Not a whole lot different than U of St Thomas campus security harrasing
} }students for writing pro-choice slogans on the sidewalk (the security
} }guards forced them to clean off the chalk writings). The school defended
} }the security guards' action, but later admitied that there is no policy
} }against chalk writings on the sidewalk.
> Why do liberals insist on a policy on everything?
Huh? Re-read what I wrote. The students did nothing against school
policy (or illegal) yet campus security took it upon themselves to
enforce political correctness.
> Just because you think it's
> cute to write something with chalk on a sidewalk does it mean that everyone
> enjoys your infantile remarks?
Whether others enjoy it or not does not justify campus security enforcing
political correctness.
> Does the college also have to have a policy
> against grafiti on bathroom walls? How about spray painting on walls?
Yes, it is called vandalism. It is also illegal.
> Your
> arguements are so childish. A bunch of liberals seize and destroy some
> newspapers and that's alright because students elsewhere aren't allowed to
> write on the sidewalk? Grow up!
Strawman. I never said that destroying newspapers was alright.
I just wanted to point out that liberals do not have a monopoly
on political correctness.
Russ Anderson
>
> >Who are these mysterious "Liberals" you guys are
> >always talking about? They seem to be blamed for
> >as many crimes as Ronny Ray-Gun is guilty of.
> ..
>
> >They almost seem as bad as those conservative
> >moral-majority types who want to control TV,
> >radio, and everything else. Who are these
> >"liberals"?
>
> Easy: The conservative moral majority types are the ones who WANT to
> control TV. The liberals are the ones who DO control TV. Simple, huh?
Yea, that liberal GE spreading liberal propoganda on NBC. :-)
Evil Engineer doin' it the Cowboy Way
[...]
Jared> Who are these mysterious "Liberals" you guys are
Jared> always talking about? They seem to be blamed for
Jared> as many crimes as Ronny Ray-Gun is guilty of.
Jared> Before you know it, they will be blamed for losing
Jared> the America's Cup, for the failed invasion of Canada,
Jared> and for the murder of John Lennon.
Jared> They almost seem as bad as those conservative
Jared> moral-majority types who want to control TV,
Jared> radio, and everything else. Who are these
Jared> "liberals"?
We're like the Feminazis. There's really only a couple dozen of us out
there.
But. We do control everything.
L.
"Yeh, Buddy.. | la...@psl.nmsu.edu (Larry Cunningham)| _~~_
I've got your COMPUTER! | % Physical Science Laboratory | (O)(-)
Right HERE!!" | New Mexico State University | /..\
(computer THIS!) | Las Cruces, New Mexico, USA 88003 | <>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Disclaimer: Opinions expressed here are CORRECT, mine, and not PSLs or NMSUs..
O Fair New Mexico! Landfill of Enchantment. And home of THEM (Atomic Ants)..
Mark 'Mark' Sachs
Dippold) says:
[Presumably attempting to provide evidence that "liberals" hate free speech:]
>Freedom of speech isn't something everybody should be allowed to have.
> -- Tony Hartin, International Socialist Organization
>Some form of 'censorship' is unavoidable and it fosters freedom of speech.
> -- Ed "Ignorance is Strength" Nilges
Oo, golly. Two whole quotes. One from some socialist organization I (and, I
will wager, 99% of American liberals) have never heard of, and the other from
one person speaking his own opinion on the Net, and both probably taken out
of context at that. One more quote like that, Ron, and you'll be ready to
publish.
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.
Bill Anderson
: Still straining to make me take you seriously, eh? You wouldn't know
: an import if it shot up your ass and did internal damage. You're fun
: to play with, though. Neener neener.
:
Hey, this is fun; let's get the others to play! Kids, here are
the rules:
PHASE 1- The Setup. Ron makes a Blatant Assertion. This can be
either a Silly Generalization ("Liberals believe that all ethics
are relative") or an Unsupported Aspersion ("Donna Shalala believes
that the military is bad/evil"); they both count.
PHASE 2- The Hook. You ask Ron to support his blatant assertion.
Add a little sarcasm to this phase and watch Ron jump!
PHASE 3- The Payoff. If Ron supports his assertion, you lose; but
if he evades the issue, you earn points toward valuable prizes!
Bonus points are awarded if Ron throws a temper tantrum, but be
careful: if he says "neener neener," then you have to spin the
Ridiculous Wheel!
It's easy and fun, and best of all, no one ever loses! Play today!
Bill
David Steinberg
>
>In article <rdippold.736709859@qualcom>, rdip...@qualcomm.com (Ron "Asbestos" Dippold) writes:
>> Liberals believe other people should be free to govern themselves as
>> they see fit - as long as they see fit to see as liberals see fit.
>
>As opposed to conservatives who believe other people should be free to
>govern themselves as they see fit - as long as they see fit to see as
>conservatives see fit.
Yes but remember, not liberal is NOT equivalent to conservative. A
friendly reminder from YANT (Yet Another Net Libertarian)
-David "ZZYZX" Steinberg
(dste...@emmy.nmsu.edu)
**********************************************************************
*"And everything I do *"I can't believe I'm a junior and a *
* To get the title * film major, when all I really *
* And when they use it on me * wanted in this life was to marry a *
* I reject it." * lobsterman and cook fish." *
* -Phish * -a letter from Christie Searing *
**********************************************************************
EMIL CHUCK
#e...@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK) writes:
#> Late post: From April 29, 1993 Rush Limbaugh Show (News Item)
#> John Switzer writes:
#> "More political cleansing is going on at Penn State - the opponents of a
#> conservative campus newspaper have once again stolen all the copies of the
#> paper, but this time instead of throwing them away they've burned them."
#>
#> You liberals in Happy Valley should be really proud of yourselves in
#> displaying your tolerance for others' ideas and differing opinions.
#
#Not a whole lot different than U of St Thomas campus security harrasing
#students for writing pro-choice slogans on the sidewalk (the security
#guards forced them to clean off the chalk writings). The school defended
#the security guards' action, but later admitted that there is no policy
#against chalk writings on the sidewalk.
#
#Only liberals engage in PC, if you ignore the conservative PC.
Oh goodness. We're back to the #1 university in the nation, University of
St. Thomas again. When this came up before, I basically said I did not
like the intimidation the pro-lifers seem to have over the pro-choice
crowd here too, but that I don't see UST as the vanguard of what is to
come on college campuses all across this nation. We've had the stories of
liberals defacing campaign posters of conservative candidates and
conservatives defacing posters of liberal candidates. But I doubt that
students at Stanford or Yale are shuddering at the thought that this will
happen to them on their campuses next semester.
The matter of fact is this, had this happened at Duke, the student
activists would be outraged and would call for nothing less than firing
the security officers involved. Yet if anyone dare chalk-up the sidewalks
in communicating a pro-life message, they would be among the first to pick
up buckets of soapy water to wash them off.
--
Emil Thomas Chuck e...@acpub.duke.edu BSE in BME in '93
Vacation from network begins circa May 24, 1993.
New account activated circa July 1993.
Summer email until July: etc...@helix.nih.gov beginning May 16.
Lawrence Mulvihill
>r...@mahogany126.cray.com (Ben's Dad) writes:
>
>Why do liberals insist on a policy on everything?
I object to this use of liberal and conservative. I've been labeled
both by various people. In my experience it tells you more about
the people doing the labeler than the labelee.
>Just because you think it's
>cute to write something with chalk on a sidewalk does it mean that everyone
>enjoys your infantile remarks?
The standard for toleration of speech in the USA is not the quality of
the entertainment (see relevant SC rulings).
>Does the college also have to have a policy
>against grafiti on bathroom walls?
It seems to me that those you choose to call "conservative" had a
great time in the 80's doing anything that wasn't illegal to make
a buck. The idea was that nothing was wrong if it wasn't illegal,
whether it involved dumping waste, or screwing the lawyerless peon
out of her insurance check.
>A bunch of liberals seize and destroy some
>newspapers and that's alright because students elsewhere aren't allowed to
>write on the sidewalk? Grow up!
A bunch of "conservatives" in Fairfax Co., VA opposed the distribution
of a gay interest newspaper in the public library system. It seems to
me that I recently read in "The Journal" that people were removing these
newspapers and trashing them. Guess whether these people were "liberal"
or "conservative"? You humans are so silly. You try to seize the upper
moral hills, but your actions are in the gutters. Pluck the log out
of your own eye before you go chasing motes in your neighbor's.
Mark Pundurs
>In article <geturner....@aer.com>, getu...@aer.com. (George Turner) writes:
>> r...@mahogany126.cray.com (Ben's Dad) writes:
>> >there is no policy
>> >against chalk writings on the sidewalk.
>Returning the full paragraph for context:
>} }Not a whole lot different than U of St Thomas campus security harrasing
>} }students for writing pro-choice slogans on the sidewalk (the security
>} }guards forced them to clean off the chalk writings). The school defended
>} }the security guards' action, but later admitied that there is no policy
>} }against chalk writings on the sidewalk.
>> Why do liberals insist on a policy on everything?
>Huh? Re-read what I wrote. The students did nothing against school
>policy (or illegal) yet campus security took it upon themselves to
>enforce political correctness.
Is it your contention that school security would have left pro-life
sloganeers alone? Do you have any evidence for this?
--
Mark Pundurs
any resemblance between my opinions and those
of Wolfram Research, Inc. is purely coincidental
Russ Anderson
That is exactly my point. PC goes both ways. Your original Subject
header certainly does not convey that point. Nor does your "You liberals
in Happy Valley should be really proud [...]" comment.
The difference is that liberal PC makes headlines, while conservative PC
is ignored.
> But I doubt that
> students at Stanford or Yale are shuddering at the thought that this will
> happen to them on their campuses next semester.
>
> The matter of fact is this, had this happened at Duke, the student
> activists would be outraged and would call for nothing less than firing
> the security officers involved.
And had it happened to pro-life students (by pro-choice security guards)
it would have been all over the media and Rush would be making those
students martyrs.
> Yet if anyone dare chalk-up the sidewalks
> in communicating a pro-life message, they would be among the first to pick
> up buckets of soapy water to wash them off.
Which would probably make national headlines...
Nathan Engle
>na...@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle) writes:
>>I'm not particularly impressed by
>>these conservative newspaper "opponents", but then I'm not responsible
>>for what they do.
>Then it's alright to burn or seize newspapers if you disagree with what
>the newspapers have to say?
I suppose that depends on your definition of "alright". If the
newspapers are stationed in public locations for free distribution, then
people who take all the copies and burn them may not (technically speaking)
have violated any laws, just as the Branch Davidians appear not to have
violated any laws.
Yet I would say that the act of burning papers is pointless and unwise.
Such ham-handed attempts to censor what the papers say actually highlights
and publicizes the message they contained. It does not prevent the
dissemination of the ideas. It breeds sympathy for the publishers of
the newspapers and contempt for the small-minded, fearful people who
thought that the papers were so offensive that they should have been
destroyed.
As far as moral correctness or the legality of destroying the papers
is concerned, I have only a remote interest. The mere fact that their acts
result in the exact opposite desired effect should be enough to dissuade
these self-appointed thought police from repeating their performance, but
somehow I doubt that will happen; if they were dumb enough to do it once
they're probably dumb enough to do it again.
I do not agree with what they did, but I have little time and even
less interest in moral condemnation.
>Where do you draw the line?
I draw the line based primarily on what is effective and expeditious.
Ideas are extremely powerful, able to survive the hottest flame. Burning
books or papers that contain offensive ideas might provide momentary relief
to a political pyromaniac, but it fails to achieve any substantive end.
Those burned newpapers were burned in vain; a waste of paper and a waste
of effort.
>It's alright for liberals to burn books but it's not alright for Nazis
>to burn books?
If you're looking for a discussion of the morality of book-burning
then someone else will have to help you. I might be slightly more
interested in that aspect of book-burning if it wasn't such a self-
defeating activity in the first place.
>----------------------------------------------------------------
>getu...@aer.com | one man gathers what another man spills.
--
Nathan Engle Software Juggler
Psychology Department Indiana University
na...@psygate.psych.indiana.edu nen...@silver.ucs.indiana.edu
Bob Rahe
>In article <1sbpo7...@apache.dtcc.edu>, b...@hobbes.dtcc.edu (Bob Rahe) writes:
>> Easy: The conservative moral majority types are the ones who WANT to
>> control TV. The liberals are the ones who DO control TV. Simple, huh?
>Yea, that liberal GE spreading liberal propoganda on NBC. :-)
Huh? GE liberal? Not when I worked for them anyway. They are the owners,
it is their business. They hire people to run it and make money. I often
find it funny that businesses, which are OFTEN the brunt of attacks by these
same liberals (ever seen a 'good guy' businessperson on tv???) actually
hire them and or support their causes.... But, I guess the net of it is
they make money..... No, I don't think GE is liberal, but I also wouldn't
say they are actually controlling TV either. Irrelevant in any case, it is
a fact the media is liberal, whoever owns them...
Greg Otts
>
>In article <14...@news.duke.edu>, e...@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK) writes:
>> Late post: From April 29, 1993 Rush Limbaugh Show (News Item)
>> John Switzer writes:
>> "More political cleansing is going on at Penn State - the opponents of a
>> conservative campus newspaper have once again stolen all the copies of the
>> paper, but this time instead of throwing them away they've burned them."
>>
>> You liberals in Happy Valley should be really proud of yourselves in
>> displaying your tolerance for others' ideas and differing opinions.
>
>Not a whole lot different than U of St Thomas campus security harrasing
>students for writing pro-choice slogans on the sidewalk (the security
>guards forced them to clean off the chalk writings). The school defended
>the security guards' action, but later admitied that there is no policy
>against chalk writings on the sidewalk.
>
I think the security guard was doing something reasonable since the
students were defacing school property. Those students at U of St
Thomas and Penn State demonstrated a total disregard for property.
They share the same lack of respect for property as those radical
anti-abortionists who vandalize abortion clinics in the name of
their case.
>Only liberals engage in PC, if you ignore the conservative PC.
True enough, although I think your example is a poor one.
- Greg Otts
Ron Asbestos Dippold
>In article <rdippold.736709859@qualcom>, rdip...@qualcomm.com (Ron "Asbestos" Dippold) writes:
>> Liberals believe other people should be free to govern themselves as
>> they see fit - as long as they see fit to see as liberals see fit.
>As opposed to conservatives who believe other people should be free to
>govern themselves as they see fit - as long as they see fit to see as
>conservatives see fit.
Exactly. That's why I'm libertarian. I just find it amusing when
liberals present themselves as somehow a more enlightened choice then
conservatives as far as freedoms go.
--
Bureaucratic Cop-Out
Ron Asbestos Dippold
lib...@emory.edu (Bill Anderson) writes:
>PHASE 3- The Payoff. If Ron supports his assertion, you lose; but
Phase 3 only applies to you, Bill, my personal Bozo the Clown Bopping
Bag. Anything else would be wasted. If someone else wants to ask the
same question, I'll answer.
--
May you be the proof that man can endure everything.
Ron Asbestos Dippold
People who take away my freedoms or property under the pretense of
preserving or expanding them. Conservatives do it from a Biblical /
religious basis.
--
Racial prejudice is a pigment of the imagination.
J. E. Shum
I know I will probably burn in net.hell for this buuuut...
I think the free-speech/anti-censorship position belongs to us
libertarians. In my observation both the conventional left-
and right-wing politicos use and abuse the issue depending on
the particular bit of speech involved. The Libertarian Party
has never done this to my knowledge.
--
Jon Edward Shum <j...@mitre.org>
Gary Christiansen
I can't imagine how we overlooked your unique ownership of an
idea. Come to think of it, I can't imagine how I came to be considered
liberal either. One day, I was considered Conservative by some and
with leftest leanings to others, issue oriented to yet others, then
*POOF* (Ron Reagan was elected) and I became known as liberal.
Amazingly, the serious left friends I have still consider me
conservative. I dunno, can't the free-speech/censorship issue simply
be the free-speech/censorship issue? Why does any specific ideology
need to 'own' it?
anon
================================================================================
The views expressed do not necessarily reflect those of my employer.
Gary Christiansen Lynn-Arthur Associates
Internet: Christ...@laa.com 2350 Green Rd, Suite 160
Voice: 313-995-5590 Ann Arbor, MI., USA 48105
Thomas Clarke
>Liberals believe other people should be free to govern themselves as
>they see fit - as long as they see fit to see as liberals see fit.
>to do something they don't approve of.
Odd. most people I know of the liberal persuasion (moi included)
would put it this way:
Conservatives believe other people should be free to pursue their
self interest as they see fit - as long as they see fit to see as
conservatives see fit. You can pursue as vigorously as you want
as long as you don't feel free to do something they don't approve of.
--
Thomas Clarke
Institute for Simulation and Training, University of Central FL
12424 Research Parkway, Suite 300, Orlando, FL 32826
(407)658-5030, FAX: (407)658-5059, cla...@acme.ucf.edu
Bill Anderson
: >PHASE 3- The Payoff. If Ron supports his assertion, you lose; but
:
: Phase 3 only applies to you, Bill, my personal Bozo the Clown Bopping
: Bag. Anything else would be wasted. If someone else wants to ask the
: same question, I'll answer.
: --
So I'm the only one who automatically wins debates with you? OK,
I guess; that's something of an honor, but I'd really rather know
where you came by your rather odd ideas about liberals. Oh, well;
I guess I'll sit back and wait for somebody else to ask...
Bill
Bill Anderson
: I know I will probably burn in net.hell for this buuuut...
I think you're probably right, there, Jon. Neither liberals nor
conservatives have consistently supported the First; as far as
I know, libertarians have.
Bill
>
Nathan Engle
>>Who are these mysterious "Liberals" you guys are
>>always talking about?
>People who take away my freedoms or property under the pretense of
>preserving or expanding them.
Those definitely sound like naughty people, but I'm still having
trouble placing them. I'm not a libertarian, and my stand on social
issues definitely places me in the liberal camp rather than the
conservative. Am *I* taking away your freedoms under the pretense of
expanding them?
>Conservatives do it from a Biblical/religious basis.
I believe that's an unfair characterization as well. You needn't be
at all religious to be appalled at the tragedy of crack babies or addicts
without hopes or dreams. Nor do you need to be religious to respect the
American flag or to feel sadness or anger when someone burns one. IMO
there are plenty of rational secular bases for conservative positions,
perhaps even more so than for liberal ones.
Ben's Dad
Other people/groups have made chalk writings without being harrassed
or their messages promptly erased. Any pro-choice messages are
promptly removed. Harrasment of pro-choicers is not rare at St Thomas.
St Thomas has a creative way of censoring the view they do not want
to hear by controlling the means of communication (by creating a
catch 22 situation). They do not allow any posters, meetings, forums,
etc without the sponsorship of a school approved group. The school
will not allow groups with a message contrary to Catholic teaching.
So they remove any pro-choice posters, etc, not on the grounds that
the want to restrict speech (that would be too obvious), instead
the say that they are restricted for not being sponsored by a
school sanctioned group. And any group that would sponsor a
pro-choice message will not be sanctioned by the school.
In rejecting the request for a pro-choice group, President for
Student Affairs, the Rev. John Forliti said "St Thomas is a Catholic
institution, and the pro-choice movement does not fall in line
with Catholic teachings". The Aquin 4/10/91.
Ron Asbestos Dippold
>issues definitely places me in the liberal camp rather than the
>conservative. Am *I* taking away your freedoms under the pretense of
>expanding them?
Would you say that any agreement I enter into with a consenting second
party is valid, and that the government forcing such an agreement is
invalid? That any activity which I care to engage in which does not
directly harm the freedom, health, and/or property of another person
(assuming they haven't consented to such) is acceptable (this is not a
guaranteed right to such activity, just that if I can perform the
activity that it's not illegal). Do you support the government
regulation of any commerce I engage in that doesn't violate the above?
Can I hire and do business with whoever I choose? Do you support the
government confistication of my money and/or property through taxation
or seizure? My, there's a big list, but this should do for now.
>>Conservatives do it from a Biblical/religious basis.
> I believe that's an unfair characterization as well. You needn't be
>[...]
>American flag or to feel sadness or anger when someone burns one. IMO
>there are plenty of rational secular bases for conservative positions,
>perhaps even more so than for liberal ones.
There definitely are, but I've generally found that when pressing a
conservative for basic reasons (_Why_ can't I do this?) they'll
generally go back to that basis. On those fronts where they don't
want to take away my freedoms (economic), they can usually give a good
secular reason why, but for example if I ask why they would oppose
my being able to buy Playboy or Hustler some religious basis is
quite often brought up.
--
The sky is falling! No, I'm tipping over backwards.
Nathan Engle
>>issues definitely places me in the liberal camp rather than the
>>conservative. Am *I* taking away your freedoms under the pretense of
>>expanding them?
>Would you say that any agreement I enter into with a consenting second
>party is valid, and that the government forcing such an agreement is
>invalid?
Nope, I guess not. However that still leaves the question of whether
I'm taking away your freedoms under a false pretense. As a student of
Machiavelli I would have no qualms about freely admitting that your
freedoms are obviously being taken for the aggrandisement of the state.
Therefore, while I may be a scoundrel, would you at least grant that
I am a bold-faced one? From your definition it sounds like you're lumping
me in with all the people who would try to tell us that drug users or
murderers are incarcerated "for their own good" rather than for the good
of society.
>>>Conservatives do it from a Biblical/religious basis.
>>IMO there are plenty of rational secular bases for conservative
>>positions, perhaps even more so than for liberal ones.
>There definitely are, but I've generally found that when pressing a
>conservative for basic reasons (_Why_ can't I do this?) they'll
>generally go back to that basis.
And I suppose that's where I think the mischaracterization arises.
I've spoken and traded email with lots of conservatives who have fallen
back on religious arguments, but perhaps I have simply focused my
attention on the ones who have particularly impressed me by framing
their arguments in strictly rational terms.
Perhaps there is a large kernel of truth in your generalizations,
but in this case I find the exceptions (both liberal and conservative)
to be far more interesting and worthy of attention than the rest.
Greg Bradt aka The Lensman
> Liberals believe other people should be free to govern themselves as
> You can have all the freedom you want as long as you don't feel free
> to do something they don't approve of.
Interesting... until recently this was the traditional definition of
"conservative."
Greg Bradt aka ()The Lensman()
greg_...@msmgate.mrg.uswest.com | The only thing
Genie: G.BRADT | we =dare= not tolerate
Compuserve: 70206,172 | is intolerance.
BBS: (303)290 9243 |
Stan Knight
Followup-To:
Distribution:
Organization: Network Equipment Technologies, Redwood City
Keywords:
In article <rdippold.736796922@qualcom> rdip...@qualcomm.com (Ron "Asbestos" Dippold) writes:
>jd...@rchland.vnet.ibm.com (Jared Dahl) writes:
>>Who are these mysterious "Liberals" you guys are
>>always talking about?
>People who take away my freedoms or property under the pretense of
>preserving or expanding them. Conservatives do it from a Biblical /
>religious basis.
You're confusing the Religious Right with conservatives. The religious
fundies are no more conservatives then groups of conserative-newspaper
burning students are liberals. Both of these groups fall into a single
category---radical. Radical groups will use any names for themselves and
their opponents as long as it furthers there own(usually)narrow-minded
cause. Fact is--labeling anyone with a more conservative view then your
own as trying to change laws to fit their own religious beliefs is
pretty narrow-minded. That great bastion of conservatism--the Rep. party--
is currently attempting to rid themselves of the very RR of which you
complain in order to get back to a true conservative agenda. Be very
careful, history is full of those claiming to be liberal right givers while
all the time chipping away at freedoms that were already in place.
Stan Knight
|"I hope we don't get fooled again."|
Bubba O'Riely
WHO
Carl M Kadie
>Why do liberals insist on a policy on everything?
[...]
It's called the rule of law (as contrasted with the rule of man). I
think many conservatives support it too.
In the specific context of universities, here is what the Joint
Statement on Rights and Freedoms of Students says about policies:
"The institution has an obligation to clarify those standards of
behavior which it considers essential to its educational mission and
its community life. These general behavioral expectations and the
resultant specific regulations should represent a reasonable
regulation of student conduct, but the student should be as free as
possible from imposed limitations that have no direct relevance to his
education. Offenses should be as clearly defined as possible and
interpreted in a manner consistent with the aforementioned principles
of relevance and reasonableness. Disciplinary proceedings should be
instituted only for violations of standards of conduct formulated with
significant student participation and published in advance through
such means as a student handbook or a generally available body of
institutional regulations."
- Carl
ANNOTATED REFERENCES
(All these documents are available on-line. Access information follows.)
=================
academic/student.freedoms.aaup
=================
* Student Freedoms (AAUP)
Joint Statement on Rights and Freedoms of Students -- This is the main
U.S. statement on student academic freedom.
=================
=================
If you have gopher, you can browse the CAF archive with the command
gopher gopher.eff.org
These document(s) are also available by anonymous ftp (the preferred
method) and by email. To get the file(s) via ftp, do an anonymous ftp
to ftp.eff.org (192.88.144.4), and get file(s):
pub/academic/academic/student.freedoms.aaup
To get the file(s) by email, send email to archive...@eff.org.
Include the line(s) (be sure to include the space before the file
name):
send acad-freedom/academic student.freedoms.aaup
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent any organization; this is just me.
= ka...@cs.uiuc.edu =
Craig Shaver
>na...@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle) writes:
>
>>these conservative newspaper "opponents", but then I'm not responsible
>>for what they do.
>
>Then it's alright to burn or seize newspapers if you disagree with what the
>to burn books but it's not alright for Nazis to burn books?
>----------------------------------------------------------------
>getu...@aer.com | one man gathers what another man spills.
The new dummycraps are the new nazis. Remember that nazi stands
for nationalist socialist. You better join the party if you want
to have any privledges in the 'brand new beginning'.
Liberals are filth!
--
Craig Shaver (cr...@cwsix22.progroup.com) (415)390-0654
Productivity Group POB 60458 Sunnyvale, CA 94088
br...@quake.sylmar.ca.us
>In article <14...@news.duke.edu> e...@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK) writes:
>>"More political cleansing is going on at Penn State - the opponents of a
>>conservative campus newspaper have once again stolen all the copies of the
>>paper, but this time instead of throwing them away they've burned them."
>>You liberals in Happy Valley should be really proud of yourselves in
>>displaying your tolerance for others' ideas and differing opinions.
> If there's anything worse than a conservative imposing his values on
>other people, its got to be a liberal doing the same thing when his values
>should include the idea of not imposing ones values on other people.
Oh come off it. The very ESSENCE of modern liberalism is that the government
should impose its values on people. The difference between them and
conservatives is that the values are different and the Liberals are less
restrained and more powerful. Every day, the government forces me to
conform to the "liberal" value of "helping the poor", "supporting failing
businesses", "saving the whales", "public schools", etc. I have no choice
when they force their values on me but to submit. If I don't, eventually,
guys with guns will come take me away.
Liberals like to think that they would never impose their values on others,
but that's nothing but self-deception, and exactly the opposite of the
truth.
--Brian
Patrick Lang
In general liberals are big on social freedoms, but small on financial
freedoms i.e. they are willing to let you make up your own mind about
abortion, but also willing to impose taxes on your income.
In general conservatives are big on financial freedoms, but small on
social freedoms i.e. they will tell you that abortion is illegal, but will
try to tax your income less.
In this sense both conservatives and liberals are quite willing to tell
other people what to do by force of law. An alternative does exist,
libertarians would like to use the force of law, to keep other people from
forcing their personal beliefs on everyone else---whether it be taxation
or a ban on abortion. The force of law is an ugly thing, but a necessary
element in any society---libertarians would like to see it used much less
often. Libertarians prize freedom above all else, and believe in being as
independent from government as is possible---in this sense they believe in
law to uphold only order, and respect for personal and financial freedoms.
Libertarians, contrary to popular belief are not anarchists, but simply
believe in maximizing human freedoms across the board. Libertarians
believe that the government should stay out of both your personal life,
and pocket book to the greatest extent possible. Libertarians do not
believe in anarchy, they would just like to see the size of government
sharply curtailed. The functions of government they would keep are the
judicial system (for arbitration of disputes), the military, basic
infrastructure etc.. (what is necessary to include here is clearly open to
debate).
Some libertarians are borderline anarchists, but most are moderate. To say
that all libertarians are anarchists, is like trying to say that all
republicans make Pat Buchanan look liberal.
There are a lot of moderate libertarians out there who just don't know it.
Liberal republicans and conservative democrats may feel more comfortable
in their chosen affiliations, but they have moderate libertarian beliefs.
I know this may be a disturbing topic to some readers, but I thought I'd
throw it out there.....and see what your reactions are going to be.
Patrick Lang
William C. Barwell
I'll bite. Back to your comments on Shalala. You made some claims that
you were asked to back up. You instead dodged the issue by starting a
flame war. So, can you prove Shalal holds the beliefs you attributed to
her? Citations?
Pope Charles Slack!
--
po...@unkaphaed.jpunix.com (William C. Barwell)
Unka Phaed's UUCP Thingy, Houston, TX, (713) 481-3763
1200/2400/9600/14400 v.32bis/v.42bis
Chip Switzer
> In article <rdippold.736724744@qualcom>, rdip...@qualcomm.com (Ron "Asbestos"
> Dippold) says:
> [Presumably attempting to provide evidence that "liberals" hate free speech:]
>
> >Freedom of speech isn't something everybody should be allowed to have.
> > -- Tony Hartin, International Socialist Organization
>
> >Some form of 'censorship' is unavoidable and it fosters freedom of speech.
> > -- Ed "Ignorance is Strength" Nilges
>
> Oo, golly. Two whole quotes. One from some socialist organization I (and, I
> will wager, 99% of American liberals) have never heard of, and the other from
> one person speaking his own opinion on the Net, and both probably taken out
> of context at that. One more quote like that, Ron, and you'll be ready to
> publish.
>
Golly, one scathing rebutal of two quotes. I guess that pretty much
nails down your defense.
Need more evidence? I'm sure most of us who've matriculated at a
major university can come up with several. At the University of
Washington, we had a daily liberal rag put out by the "Journalism"
department that seemed to take as its sole duty to try to get the
weekly conservative paper off campus. Coexistence couldn't be tolerated.
You'd have thought this conservative paper (the Spectator) was a
direct threat to their way of life -- a life where nobody challenges
the prevailing accademic, socialist agenda. (Well, maybe it was...)
Then there was the time that Jean Kirkpatrick came to speak on campus.
Our venerable protectors of free speech turned out in droves to shout
her down and make sure she couldn't spew forth any of her radical
conservative dogma. What an embarasment.
--
Chip Switzer "A witty saying proves nothing."
t-ch...@microsoft.com -Voltaire
Subramanian Kalyanasundaram
>Oh come off it. The very ESSENCE of modern liberalism is that the government
>should impose its values on people. The difference between them and
>conservatives is that the values are different and the Liberals are less
>restrained and more powerful. Every day, the government forces me to
>conform to the "liberal" value of "helping the poor", "supporting failing
>businesses", "saving the whales", "public schools", etc. I have no choice
>when they force their values on me but to submit. If I don't, eventually,
>guys with guns will come take me away.
>
>Liberals like to think that they would never impose their values on others,
>but that's nothing but self-deception, and exactly the opposite of the
>truth.
>
>--Brian
>
then why should the Government exist?
Liberals understand that market - forces have failed to reach the
poor, homeless and downtrodden and the Government *has* to
go to their help.
Subu.
Caleb Strockbine
restrained and more powerful. Every day, the government forces me to
conform to the "liberal" value of "helping the poor", "supporting failing
businesses", "saving the whales", "public schools", etc. I have no choice
when they force their values on me but to submit. If I don't, eventually,
guys with guns will come take me away.
True. Also true, however, is that every day the government forces us all to
conform to plenty of "conservative" values too.
But that's the whole point. There are lots of things that you don't like
and lots that I don't like. We might agree on some things, but rest assured
there's someone else who's dead certain that we're both wrong. We both deal
with our problems as best we can, and we both do as much as we feel like
doing to influence the system.
Democracy works. Maybe there are lots of problems, and maybe there are lots
of things that you think should change. Well, when the problem becomes big
enough or enough people call for a change, something changes.
The point here is that you make it sound as though your being forced into
submission is somehow grossly unfair, when in fact EVERYONE feels that way,
no matter what their position is. That's democracy. That's life.
Caleb.
--
This message has been brought to you by the letters C and S and the number 3.
Brian K. Yoder
>St Thomas has a creative way of censoring the view they do not want
>to hear by controlling the means of communication (by creating a
>catch 22 situation). They do not allow any posters, meetings, forums,
>etc without the sponsorship of a school approved group. The school
>will not allow groups with a message contrary to Catholic teaching.
>So they remove any pro-choice posters, etc, not on the grounds that
>the want to restrict speech (that would be too obvious), instead
>the say that they are restricted for not being sponsored by a
>school sanctioned group. And any group that would sponsor a
>pro-choice message will not be sanctioned by the school.
>In rejecting the request for a pro-choice group, President for
>Student Affairs, the Rev. John Forliti said "St Thomas is a Catholic
>institution, and the pro-choice movement does not fall in line
>with Catholic teachings". The Aquin 4/10/91.
There is a GIGANTIC difference between Aquinas and a public university.
Aquinas is a private school, and it is perfectly acceptable for them to
adopt whatever limitations they desire. Now, I'm not Catholic (or
even religious), but I do respect the rights of religious (or anti-religious)
folks to establish institutions with whatever intellectual traditions or
restrictions they desire. PUBLIC schools on the other hand are using
the resources provided by (mostly) unwilling taxpayers, and to take their
money (which is bad to start with) and then use it to suppress the ideas
they promote is itself a kind of censorship.
Now, if STAU asked me how I thought they should run their school for
maximum positive effect on their students, I would suggest thay they
drop all the Catholic stuff, institute a climate of academic freedom
(within a context of reasoned debate, not irrational ravings or
taking over buildings), and hire professors according to a certain
kind of rational standard regarding their positions (ie. no nazis,
no marxists, no irrationalists, deconstructionists, etc.), because
these ideas are fundamentally opposed to the purpose of education.
Racism, theft, ignorance, and intellectual helplesness are what
education ought to be fighting against. I would no more hire
such people in a school than I would hire Jack the Ripper to work
in a hospital, and to refuse to do so is not in contradiction with
a rational view of academic freedom either, and more than keeping
Jack the ripper out of a hospital is a limitation on the freedom of
doctors to practice medicine. Academic freedom requires that one
be academic, not that one be free to do anything one feels like.
Of course those folks could go start their own school with their
own money, but I don't think there are many parents who would send
their kids there.
--Brian
Brian K. Yoder
>Dippold) says:
>>Liberals believe other people should be free to govern themselves as
>>they see fit - as long as they see fit to see as liberals see fit.
>>You can have all the freedom you want as long as you don't feel free
>>to do something they don't approve of.
>Odd. most people I know of the liberal persuasion (moi included)
>would put it this way:
>Conservatives believe other people should be free to pursue their
>self interest as they see fit - as long as they see fit to see as
>conservatives see fit. You can pursue as vigorously as you want
>as long as you don't feel free to do something they don't approve of.
As an Objectivist I am inclined to agree with BOTH of these, although
it certainly seems as though the Liberals are more guilty of carrying
out these policies (the concervatives would likely do more of this if
they had more power). A better way I have seen it expressed is:
Liberals don't particularly care what policy is adopted as long as it is
mandatory.
--Brian
Virginia's Gentleman
I agree with most of what you had to say. However, I would like to say that
Marxism is not contrary to the goals of education. I am not saying Marxism
is neccessarily a good economic system, and I do not advocate going to
a Marxist system, but Marxist theory does indeed support education. From the
Communist Manifesto:
the 10th mandate in the communist manifesto:
10.Free education for all children in public schools.
I just wanted to say that Marx is important for understanding modern political
theory, and to reject what he said just because he was a Communist is rather
counter-intuitive.
Marx believed the worst thing you could do was to shut your eyes to the horros
occurring around you as they happen; members of society need to remain aware of
what is happening in order to maintain their individual autonomies.
Jesse
Craig Shaver
>Sender:
>Followup-To:
>Distribution:
>Organization: Network Equipment Technologies, Redwood City
>Keywords:
>
>In article <rdippold.736796922@qualcom> rdip...@qualcomm.com (Ron "Asbestos" Dippold) writes:
>
>You're confusing the Religious Right with conservatives. The religious
>pretty narrow-minded. That great bastion of conservatism--the Rep. party--
And you are confusing Republicans with conservatives. Bushy was and is
a liberal tax and spender. I am so fed up with the lot of them that
I am going to either vote for Bonapart Perot or help the fundys take
over the Republican Party and eventually set up a government that
is based on religion. We will see how long the liberals last when
the inquisition starts. I want to be one of the ones putting the
questions to Sam Donaldson.
del ...
Ron Asbestos Dippold
>I agree with most of what you had to say. However, I would like to say that
>Marxism is not contrary to the goals of education. I am not saying Marxism
>is neccessarily a good economic system, and I do not advocate going to
>a Marxist system, but Marxist theory does indeed support education. From the
>Communist Manifesto:
>the 10th mandate in the communist manifesto:
>10.Free education for all children in public schools.
For good reason - it's a wonderful tool of indoctrination.
We must hate - hatred is the basis of Communism. Children must be
taught to hate their parents if they are not Communists.
-- Nikolai Lenin
--
You have not converted a man because you have silenced him.
Neil Bernstein
: Liberals believe other people should be free to govern themselves as
: they see fit - as long as they see fit to see as liberals see fit.
I know there's alt.flame.spelling -- is there alt.flame.grammar?
sigWars:
: --
:Ted Kennedy: Where was George? Answer: Dry, sober, and at home with his wife.
Well, "if he won't do it to his wife, he'll do it to the country" to YOU, bud.
- Neil Bernstein
--
nwbe...@unix.amherst.edu
8-10 kyu: I'm "Pheriste" on IGS, but not often there, so let's play by mail!
--
"I don't operate on a need-to-know basis. I'm Non-Sequitor Man."
- Jim Dubinsky, Amherst College '95
Neil Bernstein
: It seems to me that being pro-free-speech and anti-censorship has
: little correlation with right/left political ideology.
:
: I do not think the blanket statements about right/left being
: pro/anti censorship are valid at all.
How do we apply this to what is taught in the classroom? If a curriculum which
tries to say that gay and lesbian parents are just as good at bringing up
children as straight parents is deemed "inappropriate" to teach to children
because it includes this point, would you call that censorship? I sure would.
And where do right and left come down on that?
Daniel Kearney
Let's consider why government was created in the first place-- to maintain the
rule of law. That requires little value imposition other than the enforcement
of the mutual contract of people who desire the advantages of not living under
anarchy. Maintenence of law is the *first order of government*.
It is so sad "liberalism"-- as the label has come to mean-- has
forgotten this. It really pains me when I see police departments in our cities
getting the budget ax while liberal "redistributive" programs suck the public
purse dry. Liberals such as Subu actually have convinced themselves that
goverment's primary task is to redistribute wealth!
And to what end, Subu? If you think liberals' approach to solving the problems
of the poor has been wise, you might re-consider. The problem is too elaborate
for me to detail now, but I suggest you go pick up a copy of Charles Murray's
classic, "Losing Ground", about American social policy since 1950. It might
make even you ask why government has taken so much of your money over the last
two decades for no reason other than to entrench the poor in their poverty.
Just a hint of what you might find after reading: if government is really there
for the reasons you state, it probably should be discarded.
--Daniel P. Kearney, Jr.
Ron Asbestos Dippold
>Ron "Asbestos" Dippold (rdip...@qualcomm.com) wrote:
>: Liberals believe other people should be free to govern themselves as
>: they see fit - as long as they see fit to see as liberals see fit.
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>I know there's alt.flame.spelling -- is there alt.flame.grammar?
Yeah, it's called alt.anal-retentive.loser. Heavens! Grammar
sacrificed for effect! You must be feeling faint...
--
Tit for tat. The name of the game is to let the other guy have all of the
little tats and to keep all of the big tits for yourself -- Martin
J. E. Shum
In article <1seae1$4...@nigel.msen.com>, christ...@LAA.COM (Gary Christiansen) writes:
> In article <1993May7.1...@linus.mitre.org>, j...@atlas.MITRE.org (J. E. Shum) writes:
> >
> >I know I will probably burn in net.hell for this buuuut...
> >
> >I think the free-speech/anti-censorship position belongs to us
> >libertarians. In my observation both the conventional left-
> >and right-wing politicos use and abuse the issue depending on
> >the particular bit of speech involved. The Libertarian Party
> >has never done this to my knowledge.
>
> idea. Come to think of it, I can't imagine how I came to be considered
> liberal either. One day, I was considered Conservative by some and
> with leftest leanings to others, issue oriented to yet others, then
> *POOF* (Ron Reagan was elected) and I became known as liberal.
> Amazingly, the serious left friends I have still consider me
> conservative. I dunno, can't the free-speech/censorship issue simply
> be the free-speech/censorship issue? Why does any specific ideology
> need to 'own' it?
I suppose I should have included a smiley or two... I was merely
trying to point out that nearly all conventional subscribers to
political identity don't really want free-speech. They almost
always want speech that they agree with to be free and to hell
with speech that they find offensive in one way or another. As
you point out in your dryly worded posting, no one can own the
idea of free-speech. I still feel however, that there is something
slightly incongruous in either left or right wing politicos
claiming to be defenders of free speech. Hence, my claim that
the libertarians "own" free speech as a cause. Cheers.
Suggested reading:
_Free Speech for Me, But Not For Thee_ by Nat Hentoff
Virginia's Gentleman
Ron, Marx would agree completely with your statement that educations is a
wonderful tool for indoctrination. Marx contends that the bourgeois use
education to perpetuate the control over the factors of production in society.
In addition, Marx would say that censorship, consequently, is wrong because it
forces people to shut their eyes to the reality of the living conditions of
society.
The last is my essential point which I was making to the Objectivist who posted.
His argument was that Marxism was anithetical to the goals of education and that
universities should not hire Marxists (among others) because of this, while in
actuality, Marx supported the education of the entire society. Admittedly, the
education would be dictated by the perspective of society in which it took
place, but the best form of education IMHO is one which trains people to ask
questions about things and not blindly accept what they are taught to be the
absolute truth.
Again, I think economically, Marxism has its lapses, but I think it is vital
to make sure when we discuss theorists, we should do it in a way which preservestheir views and concepts accurately.
Jesse
Rob Dobson
>Oh come off it. The very ESSENCE of modern liberalism is that the government
>should impose its values on people. The difference between them and
>conservatives is that the values are different and the Liberals are less
>restrained and more powerful. Every day, the government forces me to
>conform to the "liberal" value of "helping the poor", "supporting failing
>businesses", "saving the whales", "public schools", etc. I have no choice
>when they force their values on me but to submit. If I don't, eventually,
>guys with guns will come take me away.
>
Yeah,boy, and those "fiscally conservative" reagan and bush administrations
really stopped this.
o wait, you mean, r/b not only wanted you to help pay for public schools,
but also private schools as well (through tax breaks for those who send
their kids there)
o wait, you mean r/b forced us to pay for a massive military buildup?
o wait, you mean r/b took the deficit from ~85 billion to ~400 billion?
so where ARE those "conservatives"????
Bill Anderson
:
: We must hate - hatred is the basis of Communism. Children must be
: taught to hate their parents if they are not Communists.
: -- Nikolai Lenin
:
: --
relation to V.I. Lenin, the dead communist dictator?
Bill
Gary Christiansen
Yes :) I can agree mostly. I've never met any libertarians who would
act to supress anyone else's ideas. So I cannot help agreeing with the
sentiment. But I don't like issues becoming labelled as property of a
particular ideology. It leads to polarization along party lines.
================================================================================
The views expressed do not necessarily reflect those of my employer.
Gary Christiansen Lynn-Arthur Associates
Internet: Christ...@laa.com 2350 Green Rd, Suite 160
Voice: 313-995-5590 Ann Arbor, MI., USA 48105
Russ Anderson
In article <rdippold.736796496@qualcom>, rdip...@qualcomm.com (Ron "Asbestos" Dippold) writes:
> r...@mahogany126.cray.com (Russ Anderson) writes:
> >In article <rdippold.736709859@qualcom>, rdip...@qualcomm.com (Ron "Asbestos" Dippold) writes:
> >> Liberals believe other people should be free to govern themselves as
> >> they see fit - as long as they see fit to see as liberals see fit.
>
>
> Exactly. That's why I'm libertarian. I just find it amusing when
> liberals present themselves as somehow a more enlightened choice then
> conservatives as far as freedoms go.
Like that liberal, Ronald "get the government off your back" Reagan.
--
Russ Anderson | Disclaimer: Any statements are my own and do not reflect
------------------ upon my employer or anyone else. (c) 1993
EX-Twins' Jack Morris, 10 innings pitched, 0 runs (World Series MVP!)
Russ Anderson
In article <1993May7.1...@linus.mitre.org>, j...@atlas.MITRE.org (J. E. Shum) writes:
>
> I know I will probably burn in net.hell for this buuuut...
>
> I think the free-speech/anti-censorship position belongs to us
> libertarians. In my observation both the conventional left-
> and right-wing politicos use and abuse the issue depending on
> the particular bit of speech involved. The Libertarian Party
> has never done this to my knowledge.
When you go into a shopping mall, have you ever noticed the
little message (just after "no shirts, no shoes, no service")
that prohibits distributing literature, soliciting, etc without
written authorization from the owner?
Now imagine that the entire country was like the shopping mall.
That is the Libertarian version of free-speech/anti-censorship.
Ron Asbestos Dippold
>In article <rdippold.736796496@qualcom>, rdip...@qualcomm.com (Ron "Asbestos" Dippold) writes:
>> Exactly. That's why I'm libertarian. I just find it amusing when
>> liberals present themselves as somehow a more enlightened choice then
>> conservatives as far as freedoms go.
>Like that liberal, Ronald "get the government off your back" Reagan.
Good example. He doesn't look so bad when you put him next to the
supposedly freedom-loving folks in the Clinton administration and at
our universities.
They're both rather despicable, but compared to each other they don't
look as bad, which is probably why people do that instead of defending
them on their own merits.
--
What is an atheist's favorite movie? "Coincidence on 34th Street"
Ron Asbestos Dippold
>Now imagine that the entire country was like the shopping mall.
>That is the Libertarian version of free-speech/anti-censorship.
Why sure it is, and War is Peace, and Ignorance is Strength. Oh yes,
Freedom is Slavery, a favorite.
--
Ed Sullivan will be around as long as someone else has talent. -- Fred Allen
br...@quake.sylmar.ca.us
>In article <C6oJG...@quake.sylmar.ca.us> br...@quake.sylmar.ca.us writes:
> restrained and more powerful. Every day, the government forces me to
> conform to the "liberal" value of "helping the poor", "supporting failing
> businesses", "saving the whales", "public schools", etc. I have no choice
> when they force their values on me but to submit. If I don't, eventually,
> guys with guns will come take me away.
>True. Also true, however, is that every day the government forces us all to
>conform to plenty of "conservative" values too.
I realize that, and oppose such force too, remember, I'm not a conservative,
and I don't like the restrictions conservatives promote either. That's just
not what was being discussed here, and if I had to compare the restrictions
the conservatives propose and those the liberals propose, the liberals are
much more pervasive.
>But that's the whole point. There are lots of things that you don't like
>and lots that I don't like. We might agree on some things, but rest assured
>there's someone else who's dead certain that we're both wrong. We both deal
>with our problems as best we can, and we both do as much as we feel like
>doing to influence the system.
That's where you are wrong. I disagree that influencing the "system" is
how we should be allowed to do as we choose. That is the idea of individual
rights. The government has no business telling you or me or the other
guy how to live our lives whether we are in the majority or not.
>Democracy works. Maybe there are lots of problems, and maybe there are lots
>of things that you think should change. Well, when the problem becomes big
>enough or enough people call for a change, something changes.
But I don't think that absolute democracy is a good political system! What
we need is a LIMITED GOVERNMENT dedicated to protecting individual rights,
not a game in which the guy with the most votes gets to force everyone to
do as he chooses. Minorities have just as much a right to make their own
decisions as the majority does. The place I think democracy has in a good
government is merely in selecting the officials who will administer the
laws, not to select a dictator.
>The point here is that you make it sound as though your being forced into
>submission is somehow grossly unfair, when in fact EVERYONE feels that way,
>no matter what their position is. That's democracy. That's life.
That IS how it is today, and I don't like it. I certainly have a lot of
opinions about how OTHER PEOPLE should live their lives, but I also think
that the choice as to how that will happen belongs in THEIR hands, not mine.
A society in which we all steal from one another or all enslave one another
is not the only alternative to a system in which some people enslave just
some others. The other alternative is for nobody to enslave or steal from
ANYONE. OR do you think that theft and slavery are necessary for society to
function?
--Brian
J. E. Shum
In article <1993May10.1...@hemlock.cray.com>, r...@mahogany126.cray.com (Russ Anderson) writes:
> When you go into a shopping mall, have you ever noticed the
> little message (just after "no shirts, no shoes, no service")
> that prohibits distributing literature, soliciting, etc without
> written authorization from the owner?
>
> Now imagine that the entire country was like the shopping mall.
>
> That is the Libertarian version of free-speech/anti-censorship.
Could you elaborate on that? I'm a little confused about how you
reached that conclusion.
Russ Anderson
Recapping Libertarian ideals:
1) The constitution applies only to government actions (ie the
government will not restrict speech) not to the actions of
property owners (ie Joe can restrict speech on his property).
2) Government is limited to the courts, police (internal security),
and the military (external security). Everything else is
privately owned and run.
(Are we in agreement so far?)
Therefor the property owner (property could be land or means of
communication) is free to regulate speech. Conversly, people
have a right to free speech only within the property they own
(or when other property owners allow them that privilege).
If someone does not own property, they have free speech to
the extent that other property owners allow, which is the
case in the shopping mall example. If the property owner
does not allow free speech, the person without property
cannot engage in it.
Avoiding the issue of whether this type of system is good/bad,
please point out any flaws in the above assumptions or conclusions.
Stephen A Chaney
>>In article <14...@news.duke.edu> e...@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK) writes:
>
>> If there's anything worse than a conservative imposing his values on
>>other people, its got to be a liberal doing the same thing when his values
>>should include the idea of not imposing ones values on other people.
>
>Oh come off it. The very ESSENCE of modern liberalism is that the government
>should impose its values on people. The difference between them and
>conservatives is that the values are different and the Liberals are less
>conform to the "liberal" value of "helping the poor", "supporting failing
>businesses", "saving the whales", "public schools", etc. I have no choice
>when they force their values on me but to submit. If I don't, eventually,
>guys with guns will come take me away.
Geez people find newer and better ways to accurately describe
liberalism.
In addition, at least conservatives tell you STRAIGHT that they want
to censor things. Most of the time I think a conservative censor
monger is way out of bounds with the First Amendment, but s/he at
least gives me warning way in advance.
Liberals like to do the same thing, but they cover it up, and they
redefine their censorship as "social activism," or "promoting social
justice."
Take the NOW, for instance. Give the NOW control of the law, and you
bet, your adult magazines will land you jail time JUST as fast as if
Pat Buchanan's crowd was in their place.
But wait a minute... Feminists are supposed to be about liberalism,
which is about civil liberties... right? Waitaminit, that was only
supposed to be a threat from the Right...
REDEFINITION TIME: Adult material = hate crime against women.
CENSOR IT !!!!
(According to USA Today back in mid-April 1992, 200 chapters of the
NOW supported a bill which would hold adult film manufacturers liable
for damages if a murderer or rapist claims they got the idea from an
adult film or book. The opposition, such as Betty Friedan, said that
this is madness, and absolutely anti-liberal - BUT, she was not
opposed to boycotting adult film producers.)
And shall we talk about Tipper Gore?
>Liberals like to think that they would never impose their values on others,
>but that's nothing but self-deception, and exactly the opposite of the
>truth.
I have more respect for libertarians than I do Liberals, no doubt. At
least Libertarians are 1) Honest and 2) Consistent, putting our
ideological differences aside. (Plus they don't go for censorship.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
--Steve Chaney: Founder, Borg Operating Space Systems, Revision 2.5--
The B.O.S.S. does not speak for CSUS.
Russ Anderson
In article <1soo7s...@apache.dtcc.edu>, b...@hobbes.dtcc.edu (Bob Rahe) writes:
> In article <1993May10.1...@hemlock.cray.com> r...@mahogany126.cray.com (Russ Anderson) writes:
>
> >What is your point, that a "liberal bias" will maximize TV profits? So
> >it is not really a liberal consperacy, but buisinesspeople trying to
> >maximize their profit. Those evil capitalists! :-)
>
> No, the point was, that tho GE may not be liberal itself, that has nothing
> to do with the liberal bias of the media.
How do you differenciate between "liberal bias" and "maximize TV profits" (put
on what the public wants)? Should GE reduce the profits by insisting on
politically correct shows that the public wants?
> >> I often
> >> find it funny that businesses, which are OFTEN the brunt of attacks by these
> >> same liberals (ever seen a 'good guy' businessperson on tv???) actually
> >> hire them and or support their causes.... But, I guess the net of it is
> >> they make money..... No, I don't think GE is liberal, but I also wouldn't
> >> say they are actually controlling TV either. Irrelevant in any case, it is
> >> a fact the media is liberal, whoever owns them...
>
> >It sounds like you have a problem with TV maximizing their profits...
>
> No, I found it strange that they would do it by getting in bed with groups
> who are their sworn enemies.
"sworn enemies"? Money does make strange bedfellows.
> And as far as profits goes, you seem to be saying that it is ok to reap
> profits no matter what the method?
Well that does seem to be the point of capitalism (and they are not violating
any laws)?
> I don't see a problem with this instance
> but you seem to imply that having a problem with maximizing profits due to
> the way it was done is somehow wrong? Do you believe it's ok to maximize
> profits by, say, exploiting people and/or children? Is there a problem with
> having a problem with someone maximizing their profits in a certain way?
> (And remember, I said, that this isn't one of those cases)
I see no problem in maximizing profits by televising shows that the public
(and advertisers) support.
Joseph Askew
>In article <rdippold.736993004@qualcom> rdip...@qualcomm.com (Ron "Asbestos" Dippold) writes:
>>We must hate - hatred is the basis of Communism. Children must be
>>taught to hate their parents if they are not Communists.
>> -- Nikolai Lenin
> He was only teaching that children should hate what is evil,
No he wasn't. Nicolas Lenin did not teach anything because there is and
never was any such man. The previous poster presumably means Vladimir
Illyich UlansomethingIforget better know by the pseudonym Lenin and even
then I would like to see a source for this 'quote'. It might well be him,
he did say many other stupid things.
Joseph Askew
--
Joseph Askew, Gauche and Proud In the autumn stillness, see the Pleiades,
jas...@spam.maths.adelaide.edu Remote in thorny deserts, fell the grief.
Disclaimer? Sue, see if I care North of our tents, the sky must end somwhere,
Actually, I rather like Brenda Beyond the pale, the River murmurs on.
Bob Rahe
>In article <1soo7s...@apache.dtcc.edu>, b...@hobbes.dtcc.edu (Bob Rahe) writes:
>> In article <1993May10.1...@hemlock.cray.com> r...@mahogany126.cray.com (Russ Anderson) writes:
>>
>> >What is your point, that a "liberal bias" will maximize TV profits? So
>> >it is not really a liberal consperacy, but buisinesspeople trying to
>> >maximize their profit. Those evil capitalists! :-)
>>
>> No, the point was, that tho GE may not be liberal itself, that has nothing
>> to do with the liberal bias of the media.
>How do you differenciate between "liberal bias" and "maximize TV profits" (put
>on what the public wants)? Should GE reduce the profits by insisting on
>politically correct shows that the public wants?
Who cares? That seems to be an odd differentiation? Like differentiating
between Latin and Elephants(!)
You have succeeded in obfuscating the issue fairly well, however.
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Bob Rahe, Delaware Tech&Comm College | AIDS, Drugs, Abortion: - |
|Internet: b...@hobbes.dtcc.edu | - Don't liberals just kill you?|
|CI$: 72406,525 Genie:BOB.RAHE |Save whales; and kill babies? |
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
david_monack
>Recapping Libertarian ideals:
>1) The constitution applies only to government actions (ie the
> government will not restrict speech) not to the actions of
> property owners (ie Joe can restrict speech on his property).
>2) Government is limited to the courts, police (internal security),
> and the military (external security). Everything else is
> privately owned and run.
>(Are we in agreement so far?)
>Therefor the property owner (property could be land or means of
>communication) is free to regulate speech. Conversly, people
>have a right to free speech only within the property they own
>(or when other property owners allow them that privilege).
>If someone does not own property, they have free speech to
>the extent that other property owners allow, which is the
>case in the shopping mall example. If the property owner
>does not allow free speech, the person without property
>cannot engage in it.
>Avoiding the issue of whether this type of system is good/bad,
>please point out any flaws in the above assumptions or conclusions.
Your flaw of your analogy is that you say the country would be like a
shopping mall, when actually it would be more like a million shopping
malls which is a qualititively different thing.
Dave
>--
>Russ Anderson | Disclaimer: Any statements are my own and do not reflect
>------------------ upon my employer or anyone else. (c) 1993
>EX-Twins' Jack Morris, 10 innings pitched, 0 runs (World Series MVP!)
--
David Monack e-mail: mon...@gas.uug.arizona.edu
Some say that ignorance is bliss, but I wouldn't know.
J. E. Shum
In article <1993May11.1...@hemlock.cray.com>, r...@mahogany126.cray.com (Russ Anderson) writes:
> In article <1993May11.1...@linus.mitre.org>, j...@atlas.MITRE.org (J. E. Shum) writes:
> > In article <1993May10.1...@hemlock.cray.com>, r...@mahogany126.cray.com (Russ Anderson) writes:
> > > When you go into a shopping mall, have you ever noticed the
> > > little message (just after "no shirts, no shoes, no service")
> > > that prohibits distributing literature, soliciting, etc without
> > > written authorization from the owner?
> > >
> > > Now imagine that the entire country was like the shopping mall.
> > >
> > > That is the Libertarian version of free-speech/anti-censorship.
> >
> > Could you elaborate on that? I'm a little confused about how you
> > reached that conclusion.
>
> Recapping Libertarian ideals:
> 1) The constitution applies only to government actions (ie the
> government will not restrict speech) not to the actions of
> property owners (ie Joe can restrict speech on his property).
We have that now.
> 2) Government is limited to the courts, police (internal security),
> and the military (external security). Everything else is
> privately owned and run.
Ok.
> (Are we in agreement so far?)
>
> Therefor the property owner (property could be land or means of
> communication) is free to regulate speech. Conversly, people
> have a right to free speech only within the property they own
> (or when other property owners allow them that privilege).
>
> If someone does not own property, they have free speech to
> the extent that other property owners allow, which is the
> case in the shopping mall example. If the property owner
> does not allow free speech, the person without property
> cannot engage in it.
>
> Avoiding the issue of whether this type of system is good/bad,
> please point out any flaws in the above assumptions or conclusions.
The scenario is certainly POSSIBLE under the syllogism you have
constructed, but whether or not it is likely still seems open to
me. I am still confused about how the current situation is
different aside from the fact that there is more "public"
property than there would be in the situation you describe. Do
you mean to suggest that there should be guarantees of "publicly
owned" forums (forae?) in order to preserve free speech? If so,
I must admit it is an interesting notion.
I understand that Great Britain has a square (in London?) where
anyone can just get up on a box and talk about anything his or
her heart desires for as long as they want, unmolested. I've
always liked the fact that this goes on.
Ted Frank
>> If someone does not own property, they have free speech to
>> the extent that other property owners allow, which is the
>> case in the shopping mall example. If the property owner
>> does not allow free speech, the person without property
>> cannot engage in it.
>>
>> Avoiding the issue of whether this type of system is good/bad,
>> please point out any flaws in the above assumptions or conclusions.
>
>The scenario is certainly POSSIBLE under the syllogism you have
>constructed, but whether or not it is likely still seems open to
>me. I am still confused about how the current situation is
>different aside from the fact that there is more "public"
>property than there would be in the situation you describe.
But that's precisely the major difference. No more streets. No
more parks. No more airports. Everything is owned by somebody.
Without a redefinition of First Amendment understandings, the
streets, the parks, the airports all become situations like the
shopping malls. Internet becomes Prodigy. And so on.
>Do you mean to suggest that there should be guarantees of "publicly
>owned" forums (forae?) in order to preserve free speech? If so,
>I must admit it is an interesting notion.
I like this notion myself. Hopefully, we'll soon see a reversal of
the trend towards increasingly narrow definition of public fora.
The interesting application comes wrt the (pre-cable) world of network
television. To what extent does an oligopoly over broadcast bandwidth
obligate one to make some of that bandwidth available for public use?
(Or is the television really just a toaster with pictures?)
--
ted frank | "I give up. Now I realize fully what Mark Twain
th...@kimbark.uchicago.edu | meant when he said, 'The more you explain it, the
the u of c law school | more I don't understand it.'"
standard disclaimers | -- Justice Jackson's dissent in SEC v Chenery II
Jonathan W. Kimball
& free spe.. by J. E. Sh...@atlas.MITRE.o
The point is not that the current 'de jure' situation is any different
than above. The point is that the 'de facto' situation is. For
example, newspapers and private universities are often criticized for
'violating' freedom of expression. Thing is, they have every right to.
I don't always support their actions, but I would always defend their
right. For example, if CMU decided that there was a date rape problem
with the fraternities (which there's not, to the best of my knowledge)
and decided not to allow fraternities to publicize for parties, they
have every right to. There would be no end to the bitching about it,
but really, there's nothing we could do.
> I understand that Great Britain has a square (in London?) where
> anyone can just get up on a box and talk about anything his or
> her heart desires for as long as they want, unmolested. I've
> always liked the fact that this goes on.
> --
> Jon Edward Shum <j...@mitre.org>
If I'm not mistaken, it is in London and has been around for several
hundred years--since long before there was free speech anywhere; that's
what makes it special.
--
Jonathan Kimball
internet: jk...@andrew.cmu.edu, kimb...@cmu.edu
I must go down to the seas again, for the call of the running tide
Is a wild call and a clear call that may not be denied...
Jonathan W. Kimball
somewhere in the gray area. I'm personally of the opinion that in
public places (public meaning publicly owned), anyone can say whatever
they damn well please, but on private property (even in relatively
public places), it's up to the owner. Other than to 'promote harmony
between races', what justification is there for making it illegal to
yell racial epithets (other than yelling falling under disturbing the
peace)? Again, I don't agree that it's a good thing to do, but what
does that have to do with anything? I believe it was Patrick Henry who
said, "I may not agree with what you say, but I defend to the death your
right to say it." (or something like that)
David Casseres
ste...@thor.isc-br.com writes:
>If, as I suspect, Mr. Dippold simply extracted this "quotation" from
>some piece of anti-communist propaganda from that period, the error in
>the name would make sense. (My guess is that the source is a little
>tome called "You Can Trust the Communists...To Be Communists" by a
>guy named Skolsen (?). He consistently created fantastic quotations
>from both Marx and Lenin and regularly referred to Lenin as "Nickolai.")
That's Cleon W. Skousen, an old-time FBI political propagandist, witch-hunter,
character assassin, and all-around fascist azzole who would be totally at home
among the right-wing weirdos here on the Net or on whatsisname's talk show.
Speaking of pithy Communist quotations, Stalin said "Paper will put up with
whatever you write on it." Today, he might have said "Paper, or the Net..."
-------------
David Casseres
Exclaimer: Hey!
Scott Benjamin
> >
> Date: 11 May 93 12:37:31 CDT
You are assuming of course that all property owners restrict
free speech. Not all malls practice the aforementioned policy,
many, in fact, make available a "community booth" so that people
may present or support their views. Rare is the supermarket or
laundermat that doesn't have a bulletin board for public use.
Any business owner that restricts the rights of his customers
may find himself losing business to a competetor that doesn't.
Scott
Mark Wilson
|In article <rdippold.736993004@qualcom> rdip...@qualcomm.com (Ron "Asbestos" Dippold) writes:
|>We must hate - hatred is the basis of Communism. Children must be
|>taught to hate their parents if they are not Communists.
|> -- Nikolai Lenin
| He was only teaching that children should hate what is evil,
|at least what Lenin believed to be evil. Which of you wouldn't teach
|that children should hate their parents if their parents are
|Communists (or socialists or liberals or whatever is one's favorite
|villain)?
Me.
--
Mob rule isn't any prettier merely because the mob calls itself a government
It ain't charity if you are using someone else's money.
Wilson's theory of relativity: If you go back far enough, we're all related.
Mark....@AtlantaGA.NCR.com
Carl M Kadie
[...]
>For example, newspapers and private universities are often criticized
>for 'violating' freedom of expression. Thing is, they have every
>right to.
[...]
And I have every right to criticize them. Just because their action is
legal doesn't mean that its good. I think free expression is important
to any institution of higher learning.
- Carl
ANNOTATED REFERENCES
(All these documents are available on-line. Access information follows.)
=================
academic/speech-codes.aaup
=================
* Speech Codes (AAUP)
On Freedom of Expression and Campus Speech Codes Expression - An
official statement of the American Association of University
Professors (AAUP)
It says in part: "On a campus that is free and open, no idea can be
banned or forbidden. No viewpoint or message may be deemed so hateful
or disturbing that it may not be expressed."
=================
=================
If you have gopher, you can browse the CAF archive with the command
gopher gopher.eff.org
These document(s) are also available by anonymous ftp (the preferred
method) and by email. To get the file(s) via ftp, do an anonymous ftp
to ftp.eff.org (192.88.144.4), and get file(s):
pub/academic/academic/speech-codes.aaup
To get the file(s) by email, send email to archive...@eff.org.
Include the line(s) (be sure to include the space before the file
name):
send acad-freedom/academic speech-codes.aaup
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent any organization; this is just me.
= ka...@cs.uiuc.edu =
Paul Havemann
>
>> In 1983 a Lichter-Rothman survey was made of the
>>top 104 media leaders and their moral attitudes. Those interviewed
>>included the elite in television, radio, motion picture, and
>>publishing for news and entertainment.
Those who are interested in this issue are urged to read the two-part
article on page one of _Investors Business Daily_ on May 10 and May 11.
It contains fascinating quotes such as these:
"I would freely admit that on this issue [the environment] we have
crossed the boundary from news reporting to advocacy."
-- Charles Alexander, Time magazine science editor
"The 'balanced' report, in some cases, may no longer be the most
effective, or even the most informative. Indeed, it can be
debilitating. Can we afford to wait for our audience to come
to its own conclusions? I think not!"
-- Teya Ryan, producer of CNN's "Network Earth" series
------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------
Paul Havemann (pa...@hsh.com)
sig.* not found at line 32767
Russ Anderson
In article <1spc4n...@apache.dtcc.edu>, b...@hobbes.dtcc.edu (Bob Rahe) writes:
> In article <1993May11....@hemlock.cray.com> r...@mahogany126.cray.com (Russ Anderson) writes:
> >In article <1soo7s...@apache.dtcc.edu>, b...@hobbes.dtcc.edu (Bob Rahe) writes:
> >> In article <1993May10.1...@hemlock.cray.com> r...@mahogany126.cray.com (Russ Anderson) writes:
> >>
> >> >What is your point, that a "liberal bias" will maximize TV profits? So
> >> >it is not really a liberal consperacy, but buisinesspeople trying to
> >> >maximize their profit. Those evil capitalists! :-)
> >>
> >> No, the point was, that tho GE may not be liberal itself, that has nothing
> >> to do with the liberal bias of the media.
>
> >How do you differenciate between "liberal bias" and "maximize TV profits" (put
> >on what the public wants)? Should GE reduce the profits by insisting on
> >politically correct shows that the public wants?
>
> Who cares? That seems to be an odd differentiation? Like differentiating
> between Latin and Elephants(!)
>
> You have succeeded in obfuscating the issue fairly well, however.
The issue is: why would GE (who we both agree is not a liberal company) would
allow NBC tobe part of (the alleged) liberal media consperacy?
So far we've both agree that GE wants to maximize it's profits.
A rational conclusion is that GE tells NBC to maximize profits and
NBC puts on shows that consumers and advertisers want.
Or put another way, if there is liberal bias in the media, it is because
the *free market* (consumers and advertisers) want it.
Jack B. Nimble
r...@mahogany126.cray.com (Russ Anderson) writes:
The main flaw is your premise is that there exist people who do not own
property. Even those who rent their homes thereby acquire property
rights of usage. Therefore, each person will have some domain where his
ability to engage in free speech will not violate the property rights of
others.
--
Jack B. Newsbaum You have rights antecedent to all earthly
Library Information Systems governments; rights that cannot be
University Research Library repealed or restrained by human law.
ecl...@mvs.oac.ucla.edu - John Adams
EMIL CHUCK
@e...@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK) writes:
@> r...@mahogany126.cray.com (Ben's Dad) Russ Anderson writes:
@> #e...@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK) writes:
@> #> Late post: From April 29, 1993 Rush Limbaugh Show (News Item)
@> #> John Switzer writes:
@> #> "More political cleansing is going on at Penn State - the opponents of a
@> #> conservative campus newspaper have once again stolen all the copies
@> #> of the paper, but this time instead of throwing them away they've burned
@> #> them."
@> #> You liberals in Happy Valley should be really proud of yourselves in
@> #> displaying your tolerance for others' ideas and differing opinions.
@> #Not a whole lot different than U of St Thomas campus security harrasing
@> #students for writing pro-choice slogans on the sidewalk (the security
@> #guards forced them to clean off the chalk writings). The school defended
@> #the security guards' action, but later admitted that there is no policy
@> #against chalk writings on the sidewalk.
@> #
@> #Only liberals engage in PC, if you ignore the conservative PC.
@> Oh goodness. We're back to the #1 university in the nation, University of
@> St. Thomas again. When this came up before, I basically said I did not
@> like the intimidation the pro-lifers seem to have over the pro-choice
@> crowd here too, but that I don't see UST as the vanguard of what is to
@> come on college campuses all across this nation. We've had the stories of
@> liberals defacing campaign posters of conservative candidates and
@> conservatives defacing posters of liberal candidates.
@That is exactly my point. PC goes both ways. Your original Subject
@header certainly does not convey that point. Nor does your "You liberals
@in Happy Valley should be really proud [...]" comment.
@The difference is that liberal PC makes headlines, while conservative PC
@is ignored.
I think someone has already wrote to you about some conservative PC stuff.
At least I thought I saw it already in my enews search.
@> But I doubt that
@> students at Stanford or Yale are shuddering at the thought that this will
@> happen to them on their campuses next semester.
@>
@> The matter of fact is this, had this happened at Duke, the student
@> activists would be outraged and would call for nothing less than firing
@> the security officers involved.
@And had it happened to pro-life students (by pro-choice security guards)
@it would have been all over the media and Rush would be making those
@students martyrs.
@> Yet if anyone dare chalk-up the sidewalks
@> in communicating a pro-life message, they would be among the first to pick
@> up buckets of soapy water to wash them off.
@Which would probably make national headlines...
Considering the moves liberals are making to make such protests illegal,
they will become martyrs. Again as another "liberal PC" bit, I cite the
protest at UNC by black students calling for a Black Cultural Center. Some
of the students blocked the access to the Chancellor's office and were
thus arrested. It worries me that if you codify one type of protest as
being criminal while another being "just a first amendment thing," it
becomes quite hypocritical for liberals to suggest that they're all for
tolerance and free speech.
That's probably the deal with why conservative PC isn't publicized so
much. I point out all the liberal PC because they're the ones who proudly
stood in Atlanta and New York proclaiming how wonderfully diverse and
tolerant of other people they were. Conservatives are considered bigots
anyway so any actions they take are just "natural" manifestations of their
beliefs and views to control others. It's not fair and it's not right
either way, but unfortunately that's the way it's seen to me.
I just posted this on another newsgroup:
From: e...@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: The alt.rush-limbaugh Pledge, was re: Liberals guardians speech etc
Date: 13 May 93 02:01:05 GMT
Followup-To: alt.rush-limbaugh
Organization: Duke University; Durham, N.C.
Lines: 102
pa...@hsh.com (Paul Havemann) writes:
-MBS...@psuvm.psu.edu (Mark 'Mark' Sachs) writes:
-> Ahhhhhhh...
->
-> Well, you're completely correct. I carelessly committed the same sin I
-> so regularily rail against conservatives for. (ooh! SOME conservatives!
-> SOME! :-) )
->
-> This is a big enough problem here, however, that I think we need to do
-> something about it. I assume we all agree that characterizing an entire
-> group based on the actions of a few is a Bad Thing? Then I suggest that
-> we all sign on to the a.r-l Pledge.
->
-> ========================================================================
->
-> I, __(insert name here)__, pledge that from now on I shall refrain from
-> making gross generalizations here on alt.rush-limbaugh. In particular,
-> this means that when a few members of an ideological group I disagree with
-> do something nasty, but there is no evidence that they are
-> representative of that group as a whole, then I will not view their
-> actions as representing the entire group. For example:
->
-> "Look at this! Some members of Womyn's Concerns at Penn State burned a
-> whole run of a conservative paper because it printed a cartoon not
-> Politically Correct enough for them. I guess it just goes to show that
-> liberals hate free speech, except if it's in favor of something they like."
->
-> "Can you believe that Lionhearted! A college newspaper that
-> regularily insults women, prints homophobic articles, and smears its
-> opponents. This just goes to show that conservatives are all a bunch of
-> intolerant jerks."
->
-> I pledge to refrain from the fallacy of the sweeping generalization. Should
-> I feel the urge to generalize in the future, I shall only do it if I have
-> real evidence to back it up, and not just emotion and conviction.
-> SIGNED:
-> Mark 'Mark' Sachs - mbs...@psuvm.psu.edu
- Paul 'Paul' Havemann - pa...@hsh.com
I would like to sign but I always try to stay away from the
generalizations on my own right. But seeing as I was the causative agent
of all this discussion with my snide remark: "you liberals in Happy Valley
should be really proud of yourselves in displaying your tolerance for
others' ideas and differing opinions" concerning the burning of the
conservative newspaper at PSU...
The obvious point I was making was the blatent hypocrisy of the
(generalize warning) liberals to say we are tolerant of all peoples, sexual
orientaions, and thoughts. At least so far as I know, there has been no
uproar about the actions taken by the few radicals on campus who will burn
the copies of the paper because of a not-so-very-tasteful editorial
cartoon. No investigation as to the persons responsible for such an act.
No outcry by other students that such should never happen on the campus of
an institution established for the free flow and exchange of thought and
discourse.
I point to a similar incident at Duke University in which some students
defaced the benches outside some of the fraternity "houses" at Duke. The
epithets written on the benches were very compelling and charged. The
reasoning behind the act was supposedly to try to show how the frat system
at Duke is essentially responsible for daterape occurrences on campus.
Although I agree that some of the fraternity men on campus do treat women
at kegs as nothing less than chattel, the vandals generalized the entire
frat system and even defaced the fraternity bench of Psi Upsilon, the
members of which I know very well since I live in their section but am not
a fraternity member. I know these guys well enough, and their reputation
as a fraternity in general is that they do not engage at all in this type
of treatment or intimidation of women during their social events. It even
shocked students who thought their bench was left untouched.
I personally was opposed to this move, and have told my friends that the
tactics by this groups of mysterious students has essentially turned me
against the stance they have tried to make. Others here don't agree,
instead writing articles in which the writer tries to "understand" the
rage and anger of the graffiti. God, where have I heard this before. There
was a petition drive that a friend of mine offered for me to sign. I did
not. I personally condemn the action and will not support any reaction
that tries to justify the act. It does nothing but polarize the student
body rather than unify it in my opinion. There would be a huge outcry if
similar graffiti was written on the benches of the all-womens dorms on
campus, to which I would also condemn; I do not support the actions of
these students and will not glorify their acts by telling you exactly what
they wrote on these benches.
Our minds like to grasp to one generalization because we don't like
bell-curves with a wide variance. We define the Democratic, Republican,
Libertarian, and Perot agendas by their platforms which are written
generally as a statement from the organization to which a majority of the
members approve. It is so much easier to say "they're all like that"
rather than "well, a few are but a few aren't." We like things to be
absolutes, not relatives, because we want some standard to which we can
compare ideas and people. However I do say I do believe in the uniqueness
of the individual and his/her ability to think on his/her own, that they
can disagree with the general trends if they are so courageous, that they
can defy stereotypes, and that they can be respectful of others no matter
how much they disagree with them.
--
Emil Thomas Chuck e...@acpub.duke.edu BSE in BME in '93
Vacation from network begins circa May 24, 1993.
New account activated circa July 1993.
Summer email: etc...@helix.nih.gov beginning May 16 until June 6.
Kenneth C. Mitchell
: In article <rdippold.736709859@qualcom>, rdip...@qualcomm.com (Ron "Asbestos"
: Dippold) says:
: >Liberals believe other people should be free to govern themselves as
: >they see fit - as long as they see fit to see as liberals see fit.
: >to do something they don't approve of.
: You caught us, Ron. All that rhetoric about being in favor of free
: expression, all those protest marches in favor of being able to think
: and behave however you want without harassment from government-imposed
: morality -- all just a sham. The ACLU? A front. When they defended the
: Nazi march in Skokie, Illinois, that was all a fake to lull people into
: THINKING we like free speech. When they stated they were against the
: second trial of officers in the Rodney King case, they were just kidding. Yep,
: your keen insight and breathtaking ability to instantly evaluate MILLIONS
: AND MILLIONS OF PEOPLE YOU'VE NEVER EVEN MET ("liberals" whom you accuse
: of various evils) has led you to the terrible truth. I shake my head in awe.
: Hey, guys! Looks like our evil world-domination conspiracy is off!
Hey, fair's fair. If ALL conservatives are nazis ansd bigots because of
David Duke, then all liberals can be intolerant and wrong because of Bill
Clinton.
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The Bush White House was to politics what the 1962 Mets were to
baseball. ... Its ranking members were united by a common bond; they
hadn't the slightest idea what they were doing there."
-----------------Andrew Ferguson, Wall Street Journal, 4/27/93-----------
Ken Mitchell Sacramento, CA kmit...@netcom.com
Kenneth C. Mitchell
Well, if EVERY SQUARE INCH of land in America were owned by some private
individual, you might be on to something.
But every town in America has public parks, usually dozens of them. The
streets and sidewalks are "publicly" (read; by the government, supposedly
in trust for the people as a whole) owned. No, you can't put your soapbox
in the shopping mall; but you CAN put it in the nearest public park, or on
a streetcorner.
May I also point out that every town bigger than Mayberry has at least one
public hall available for hire? Most of the time, the owner won't CARE
what you say there, or if you say ANYTHING, as long as you pay his fee for
the rental of the hall.
Anything else is seizure of private property. If you have a right to
speak publicly in the concouse of a shopping mall, does the mall owner
have the right to speak publicly in your living room? On your front yard,
perhaps?
br...@quake.sylmar.ca.us
>In article <C6oJG...@quake.sylmar.ca.us> br...@quake.sylmar.ca.us writes:
>>Oh come off it. The very ESSENCE of modern liberalism is that the government
>>should impose its values on people. The difference between them and
>>conservatives is that the values are different and the Liberals are less
>>restrained and more powerful. Every day, the government forces me to
>>conform to the "liberal" value of "helping the poor", "supporting failing
>>businesses", "saving the whales", "public schools", etc. I have no choice
>>when they force their values on me but to submit. If I don't, eventually,
>>guys with guns will come take me away.
>Yeah,boy, and those "fiscally conservative" reagan and bush administrations
>really stopped this.
You seem to have mistaken me for a conservative. I'm not. As a
consequence of that, I feel no need to defend the records of Reagan
and Bush. Anyway...
>o wait, you mean, r/b not only wanted you to help pay for public schools,
>but also private schools as well (through tax breaks for those who send
>their kids there)
That's because they are mixed-economy types, not consistent capitalists.
>o wait, you mean r/b forced us to pay for a massive military buildup?
Indeed they did (or at least it happend during their administrations)
although at least national defense IS a legitimate function of government.
Do you object to the existence of the military? To the levels of spending?
To the use of tax money to provide it?
>o wait, you mean r/b took the deficit from ~85 billion to ~400 billion?
That's what they get for being inconsistent pragmatists (particularly
Bush). I think some blame also goes to the spendthrift congress which more
than doubled spending in the 1980's. Of course Reagan and Bush could have
tried to fight it more, but like I said, I am not defending them.
>so where ARE those "conservatives"????
Reagan was a "conservative", and I have pointed out his flaws many times
before. Bush on the other hand was a liberal Republican, which is
a much different thing. BOTH were wrong on a great many things, and
more specifically, their mistakes consisted of agreeing with too many
liberals.
--Brian
Jeff Sicherman
Actually, their only readily verifiable 'mistakes' are disaggreeing with
you.
Purists rarely care about who suffers from their visions of nirvana and
are mainly interested in the supposed moral purity of their vision. Save
us Oh (select your diety) from people so obsessed with process that they
are blind to consequences.
At least the "conservatives' that you disdain had the moral integrity
to care about the consequences of their policies on the people whom
government exists to serve. Government is not an abstraction contrived
to suit your vision of so-called natural laws, it's is a PRAGMATIC (oh,
that curse word) construction of man to deal with the difficulties and
amiguities and the awful COMPROMISES of having to live together and
moderating our differences.
--
Jeff Sicherman
up the net without a .sig
Ted Frank
>Well, if EVERY SQUARE INCH of land in America were owned by some private
>individual, you might be on to something.
Given that that's the libertarian proposal, I think you're right.
>May I also point out that every town bigger than Mayberry has at least one
>public hall available for hire? Most of the time, the owner won't CARE
>what you say there, or if you say ANYTHING, as long as you pay his fee for
>the rental of the hall.
Well, they used to, before the Supreme Court put a stop to that practice.
>Anything else is seizure of private property. If you have a right to
>speak publicly in the concouse of a shopping mall, does the mall owner
>have the right to speak publicly in your living room? On your front yard,
>perhaps?
Most people with sufficiently complex world views can successfully distinguish
between a shopping mall concourse, where the owner invites the public in
for her own benefit, and one's private living room.
rod...@ucbeh.san.uc.edu
I was going to let you have it...
But I think Greg Otts summed it up perfect.
TWO POINTS Greg!
LIBERALS 0!
Signed,
Mr. Dave
In article <C6o34...@spss.com>, greg...@spss.com (Greg Otts) writes:
> In article <1993May6.1...@hemlock.cray.com> r...@mahogany126.cray.com (Ben's Dad) writes:
>>
>>In article <14...@news.duke.edu>, e...@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK) writes:
>>> Late post: From April 29, 1993 Rush Limbaugh Show (News Item)
>>> John Switzer writes:
>>> "More political cleansing is going on at Penn State - the opponents of a
>>> conservative campus newspaper have once again stolen all the copies of the
>>> paper, but this time instead of throwing them away they've burned them."
>>>
>>> You liberals in Happy Valley should be really proud of yourselves in
>>> displaying your tolerance for others' ideas and differing opinions.
>>
>>Not a whole lot different than U of St Thomas campus security harrasing
>>students for writing pro-choice slogans on the sidewalk (the security
>>guards forced them to clean off the chalk writings). The school defended
>>the security guards' action, but later admitied that there is no policy
>>against chalk writings on the sidewalk.
>>
>
> I think the security guard was doing something reasonable since the
> students were defacing school property. Those students at U of St
> Thomas and Penn State demonstrated a total disregard for property.
> They share the same lack of respect for property as those radical
> anti-abortionists who vandalize abortion clinics in the name of
> their case.
>
>>Only liberals engage in PC, if you ignore the conservative PC.
>
> True enough, although I think your example is a poor one.
>
> - Greg Otts
Rob Dobson
This is the case NOW; however, the discussion was about "libertopia".
How many public parks would there be in libertopia? Im sure there
are Libertarians who would want EVERY SQUARE INCH of land in america
to be privately owned. In this case, then, free speech would be
limited.