>>> jkschw at hotmail.com 03/22/01 05:09PM >>>
>
>CB; Why Brandeis's theory on noxious doctrine is that the best thing to do
>is release into the light of day for rational scrutiny ,no ? So, Horowitz's
>noxious views getting publicity is just what Brandeis thought best.
>
Brandeis' idea was that criticism was better than sending in the cops. It doesn't mean that every bad idea deserves a blaze of publicity.
((((((((
CB: Not deserves, but is best combatted by bringing it out in the open; and the more people who hear it, the more it will be beaten by an army of rationals
((((((((
Some bad ideas deserve to be stifled with silence.
((((((((
CB; But this abducates the responsibility implied in Brandeis's logic. When the bad idea hits the airways, it is the duty of good civil libertarians, not to be silent, but to argue it down vigorously. The Brandeis approach doesn't work using the silent treatment.
((((((((
Besides, it's not possible to have a rational discussion with Horowitz. He's an idiot, a liar and a blowhard, not an intelligent adversary. Michael Levin is a responsible thinker in comparison.
(((((((
CB; I don't see how you can confine responses to the intelligent. Plenty of successful demogogues are liars , blowhards, unintelligent even. What was Hitler's IQ or Ronald Reagan's ? Reagan was an unintelligent, lying , blowhard, with millions of followers.