Re: Re: Freedom to Spew

On Tue, 20 Mar 2001, Bijan Parsia wrote:

> I take your point, but I'm not sure you've taken mine. I've never denied
> that taking the paper prevents people from getting one. That would be
> insane. That's the *point*. I've denied that it's theft. I think it's
> called theft to stigmatize it, which I don't see as a good thing.

I'd agree its not theft and I'd agree that its being called theft to
stigmatize it.  However, I still don't think that taking all the papers
for the express purpose of denying others the ability to read them is a
good thing.  Nor is it terribly defensible or likely to convince others
that you are right.

A much better reaction would be to go find all the papers and insert a
rejoinder to the offensive speech.  I'm thinking here of instances I know
in San Francisco where prison activists went to and added a new 'front
page' to all of the city's papers.  This is a very cool and smart tactic.

> Again, if we have expansive notions of protecting speech (as some do),
> then the taking of the papers and burning them may be a form of speech. A
> vital, unique form of expression. Not one I particularly care for, but I
> don't care for the particular expression of Horowitz's ideas either.

Burning the papers may be a form of speech, but it is a form that has
several negative effects:

- First, it suppresses someone else's free speech (however odious it may
be).

- Second, it arrogantly suggests that the burners are in a better position
to judge what is acceptable reading than anyone else is.

Both of these are problematic.  Its hard for me, on principle, to defend
free speech that is explicitly designed to suppress other's speech.

The second seems to be a tactical error in that it seems likely to
alienate undecided 'listeners'.  My thought is that if Horowitz's
positions are so revolting, then let them be heard and judged by anyone
interested.  I would find it rather offensive that someone else thinks I
shouldn't be allowed to read it and judge for myself and this would
predispose me to think negatively of them, making it more difficult for
them to get their message across to me.

It doesn't seem like either side is in good company here.  Associating
one's position with the long history of book-burners hardly seems like a
good idea.  On the flip side, we have people working themselves into
hysteric fits over small transgressions while ignoring their own.


-dave

/*==================
www.urth.org
We await the New Sun
==================*/