Dennis Perrin wrote:
>
> >
>
> Perhaps "contradict" is not the word I want. It just seems that the BRC
> wants to protect itself from appearing censorious,
> conceding that Horowitz has his rights, but then at the same time it
> suggests that the First Amendment doesn't cover racist speech (which in my
> understanding, it does). Judging from its tone, I think the BRC leans more
> to the latter view than to the former.
>
The editors of the Brown newspaper and the students at Brown do not constitute _state power -- hence the first amendment is as irrelevant to the debate as the chorus of Mary had a little lamb. Horowitz is and should be free from state censorship. He is not free and should not be free to have his words published by a anon-state entity.
There is no issue of free speech raised here, any more than there would be if the New York Times refused to print this post. What if someone submitted an ad advertising the availability of five-year old girls as prostitutes, including photos of customers being satisfied. That would be far less obscene than anything Horowitz has to say. I do believe that such an ad should be protected against police censorship, but the paper should be free to refuse it, and reasonable people should feel perfectly free to burn every copy of the paper they could get their hands on -- perhaps even smash the windows of any store that stocked that issue.
As I said earlier invoking the 1st amendment in this context evidences either slovenly thinking or racism.
Carrol
Carrol