>But if there are already restrictions on what can and cannot be tested
>in this political decision-making, then those whose views are at odds
>with the status quo will be prevented from arguing for them.
>
>LM, for example, is now unable to challenge the conventional
>interpretation of the Bosnian war, under threat of imprisonment for
>contempt of court.
In the LM libel case, the institutional odds are against LM, and in this narrow sense I agree with you.
>LM, for example, is now unable to challenge the conventional
>interpretation of the Bosnian war, under threat of imprisonment for
>contempt of court.
>
>Saying 'that's the balance of forces that exists' is just a way of
>avoiding the problem.
But that is exactly where the fundamental problem lies. The USA doesn't have the kind of outrageous libel laws that did in LM, but the conventional interpretation of the Bosnian war still holds sway here all the same (in fact, the conventional wisdom may be more widely accepted here than in the UK, for all I know).
I hate to disagree with you on this issue, my friend, since I have benefited _so much_ from LM's coverage of the Yugoslav affairs, along with the work of FAIR, the CAQ, the IAC, etc. During the bombings, I often handed out LM's URL as well as copies of LM articles. I think LM may have changed a few people's minds in Columbus, OH!
The fundamental *ideological* problem is, however, that those who challenge the idea that the Serbs committed genocide faced and still faces *the charge of being an "apologist"* for Milosevic, Serbian chauvinism, etc. The following exchange is typical:
>Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2000 11:51:49 -0500
>To: lbo-talk at lists.panix.com
>From: Doug Henwood <dhenwood at panix.com>
>Subject: RE: Pro-ITN Libel Suit Post (re: THE TEARS OF THE MIGHTY
>
>Nathan Newman wrote:
>
>>LM's apology for Serb murder
>
>Whoa, Nathan. Isn't this a little overheated? I haven't seen LM
>taking an overtly pro-Serb line; it struck me more as a critique of
>NATO demonization of the Serbs. If what was called a death camp was
>not in fact a death camp, that doesn't qualify as apology for murder,
>does it?
>
>I think the postwar body counts have shown pretty conclusively that
>the genocide rhetoric - which, as I recall, you endorsed - was
>completely unearned. And I say this as no fan of Serbia or Milosevic.
>
>Doug
Censorship is most powerful when it is *not* exercised by the state directly and heavyhandedly. Ideology works best by, first of all, *shaping the terrain of discourse*. In the case of the Yugoslav affairs, the question always gets distorted into the matter of *whether* a questioner of conventional wisdom is or isn't "pro-Serb" or "pro-Milosevic." All other questions -- including *even* the welfare of Bosnian Muslims & Kosovo Albanians, which is certainly at stake -- become subordinated to the Master Question mentioned above. Then, anti-imperialist opponents of NATO have to waste time defending our political rectitude measured by conventional wisdom: "And I say this as no fan of Serbia or Milosevic." By our *defensiveness*, we *reaffirm* the correctness of *ideology* that says the fundamental *cause* of the Yugoslav woes is Serbia or Milosevic, thus ending up displacing & marginalizing the analysis of history, political economy, geopolitical reason of imperialism, mass media's institutional bias for defending the State, and so on. This is how we censor ourselves, while thinking we are "free."
Yoshie