That being said, there is an interesting question: when SHOULD we deny these overpaid sob's a privileged forum? Why should they expect a degree of civility that would never be afforded to, say, a Hyde Park soapbox orator? I'll agree that disruption is usually a very dumb tactic, but at what point does tactical civility become a matter of free speech as principle?
Michael McIntyre
>>> jkschw at hotmail.com 03/08/01 02:19PM >>>
You can't believe the conservatives' version of events. I once particiapted
in an anti-Jean Kirkpatrick demo at Michigan in 1988, where she was to
receive an honorary degree. After much discussion, we decided NOT to be
disruptive, but to politely show up at a talk sponsored by the department of
poli sci with signs, let her talk, and ask tough questions in a civil way
during the question session. (Very wimpy, I know.) She showed up, goggled,
and fled. She didn't even give her talk. In the American Spectator, the
National Review, and George F. Will's column, we learned that we had
censored her with loud disruption, shouted her down, etc. It was not true;
we hadn't. They lied. --jks
>From: Chuck0 <chuck at tao.ca>
>Reply-To: lbo-talk at lists.panix.com
>To: lbo-talk at lists.panix.com
>Subject: Re: Still MORE leftist attacks on free speech?
>Date: Thu, 08 Mar 2001 15:00:45 -0500
>
>kelley wrote:
> >
> > this was posted elsewhere. curious about what really went down. kelley
> >
> > <forwarded>
> > http://frontpagemag.com/archives/racerelations/flynn03-07-01
> > .htm~Berzerk at Berkeley
>
>I still don't understand why Left students continue to shoot themselves
>in the foot with these practices. It's always used against them in this
>viscious way. It also doesn't make sense tactically since the
>conservative movement is out of gas and burning fumes.
>
>Chuck0
_________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com