Speech denying genocide

JKSCHW at aol.com JKSCHW at aol.com
Wed Oct 28 20:50:12 PST 1998


In a message dated 98-10-28 13:35:31 EST, you write:

<< Or to put the same questions another way: if a physical anthropologist

were

>denied grants to do comparative research on the brain sizes of black and

>white women or if this anthropologist were disallowed in a required

course

>of 500 or so people from insinuating the case for deep biological racial

>differences in cognitive ability on the basis of a putatively failed head

>start programme while not equipping his students *in this physical anthro

>course* with even a basic understanding of human genetic variation or

>recent research in the interaction between nutrition, cellular

development

>and neurological sequencing--would Chomsky or others here consider such

>grant or course denials a dangerous violation of free speech?

>>

No. It's certainly not a constitutional right to have protected speech funded, and even if you think it would be good policy were more money available for various weird ideas to be prmulgatred, there's a qualitative difference between saying: Say taht on your own time and money, and saying: Say that and go to jail.

--jks



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list