>As well as being premissed on a fear and distrust of the judgement of
>ordinary people, the case for censorship betrays a lack of confidence in
>the case for progressive thinking. Are the ideas of anti-racists really
>so much weaker than those of racists? Are our ideas so feeble that we
>could not expect them to stand up to the rank prejudices of the British
>National Party or the KKK?
>
>I don't think so.
Wholehearted agreement from here. But ideas don't win out just because they're good. For example, I think it's a very strong idea that when heads of state do stuff like extra-judicial killing and torture, they ought to be prosecute-able in any court. Nuremburg prosecutros seemed to agree. The Brits (some powerful ones anyway) apparently don't.
But there is the problem of access to the media. To follow up on the example: my Chilean friend's testimony -- posted on LBO Talk -- about his torture and jailing, if publicized, might suggest that what Pinochet did went a bit beyond what should be considered a reasonable exercise of the functions of a head of state.
Not, of course, that "censorhip" would "solve" that problem. But the discussion on "freedom" sometimes renders such aspects invisible, or is used to justify the current concentration of media ownership/control. OK: no heavy handed silencing, no state-saponsored editorial boards. But what of evening the playing field for those who don't own presses/media? Is THAT a violation of freedom of speech? I'd kinda like to see it -- limits on spending for election campaigns, ad industry subsidies to consumer groups, a forum for the victims of state sponsored terror -- all that stuff routinely decried as a limitation on "freedom". Seems like that's more to the point in the day to day world I work in.
Tom
Tom Kruse / Casilla 5812 / Cochabamba, Bolivia Tel/Fax: (591-4) 248242 Email: tkruse at albatros.cnb.net