Re: Re: Freedom to Spew

On Wed, 21 Mar 2001 [email protected] wrote:

> I thought so, but I mean to suggest (as you can gather from some other
> posts) that it might not be so morally *condemable*. Speeding is illegal.
> It may be (minory) immoral (if just by the general rule that we have some
> moral obligation to obey reasonable laws). But it's also trivial, most of
> the time.

I agree (wow, we're agreeing.  how novel ;) that its trivial.

> Part of the problem is that our *reactions* partially determine the
> significance of the consquences and of the actions. So part of the status
> (tactical *and* moral) depends on what we *decide* about it.

We certainly are spending a lot of time dwelling on this one paper burning
incident.

> I believe that chalking buildings, for example, is classed as vandalism
> (via "defacing") even though not permanent. After all, permanance is a
> matter of degree (as the sand blasters outside attest :)). And, as one
> might point out, you can get much the same effect by putting the inserts
> *beside* the paper. What if I penciled in easily erasable comments
> "Horowitz is a booby" in all the papers? Is that relevantly similar to the
> inserts? What if i used post-it inserts?
>
> What if I *took* all the papers. Spent a couple of hours defacing them
> (e.g., filling out the crossword puzzle) and *put them back*? I *took*
> them, which made them mine, which I'm allowed to deface, and then put them
> back.
>
> That might be littering! :)
>
> It might be crass, but it might be funny, done right. It certainly seems
> legal. I'm not clear that it's very immoral, if immoral at all.

Well, you can come up with a million different edge cases, no doubt.  I
think I can clearly say that taking all (or as many as possible) of the
papers expressly for the purpose of burning them is not a good thing,
primarily for tactical reasons.

I can also say that taking a single paper and burning it, or taking 5 or
even 10, is ok.  It makes a statement and is probably fine tactically.

I don't really feel the need to try to enumerate all the in-between cases
as many of them come down to me saying "that feels ok" or "that doesn't
feel quite right."  In fact, in dealing with my own activist circle I've
sometimes had positions that were largely based on how 'ok' something
felt.

> Horowitz wants the *publicity* high ground, not the *moral* high ground
> (i.e, the appearance, not the reality). Frankly, once you start calling the
> protesters thieves I think you've lost the moral high ground.

Once you say the things he said you've lost the moral high ground.

> Sorry, you missed context (because it's elliptical). The hectoring is what
> Rosenthal was doing, which is what I'm against. Calling them thieves and
> thugs and brown shirts is hectoring. Encouraging them to help you do
> inserts isn't (necessarily) hectoring, but a good and reasonable reaction.

BTW, a pointer to what Rosenthal wrote would be welcome.

But yes, it sounds like what Rosenthal did was pointless.  I'm not clear
on what his position on Horowitz was, though.

> I doubt people think clearly that way. I also doubt that the protester
> thought that their action would stop Horowitz's article from being read. So
> *what is it that they're trying to do*?

That's a good question.  If their intent was getting people to talk about
how to work against Horowitz (and the racism he represents) then I doubt
they were all that effective.  When your tactics become more of a subject
of debate than your goals than you've failed.

> Yep. At least, absent a larger strategy. Of course, the interesting
> question is how *we* (leftists) respond to the fact of the "stealing".
> Rosenthal isn't the way, IMHO.

I think the best way would be to say:

"Well, burning all the papers isn't the best idea but..."

and then spend the rest of the time talking about Horowitz.

> Yep. Well, sorta. Required courses, economic need, etc. We designate
> certain situations as non-coercive or with no barriers when *de facto* they
> have oodles. Remember, there's always salon.com. Again, I take the act as a

That's a different subject.  But yes, you're right.  However, the
situation of burning the papers is entirely coercive (well, except for
that web site).

> strong statment that 1) Horowitz's ad is horrible and 2) it's not
> appropriate for a school paper to publish. Why is either offensive?

Neither statement is offensive.  But the method chosen to communicate is
offensive at worst and distracting at best.

> > Burning the papers is ethically objectionable,
>
> I'm into figuring out exactly *how* and *why* and *to what degree*.

How about this?  Anything that is counter-productive to social justice is
ethically objectionable.  If the tactics of those pursuing social justice
are counter-productive, then they become ethically objectionable.  Though
less objectionable than social injustice itself.

Of course, its easy to say that and many people will agree.  Then you try
to define counter-productive and all hell breaks loose.


-dave

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