> 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.
That is up to the editors and/or the ad dept of the Brown paper to decide. If they rejected Horowitz's ad, as did many campus papers, I would not criticize their decision. Nor would I invoke the First A if they declined to print a Horowitz letter bewailing this decision. But the paper decided to run it, and according to David Hill, ran opinion pieces that attacked this decision. That is their right, just as Workers Vanguard has the right not to print material critical of the 4th Int'l.
> 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.
Do you really believe this, Carrol?
> . . . 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.
Why stop there? Why not charge into the campus library and grab every book deemed racist, sexist or otherwise hostile to progressive ideals, rip out the pages and throw them on a bonfire? After that, burn down the library for stocking such trash in the first place.
> As I said earlier invoking the 1st amendment in this context evidences
> either slovenly thinking or racism.
Doctor, heal thyself.
DP