>>> dperrin13 at mediaone.net 03/28/01 09:27AM >>>
-clip-
And does this lack of financial means justify that clumsy, self-defeating tactic of grabbing every paper in sight?
((((((((
CB: How is the direct action of destroying the papers "self-defeating" , except with respect to the opinion of those of the predominanly mental intellectual strata who have a fetish about the written word ? And shouldn't these academics and other intellectuals be confronted on that fetish ?
The Detroit newspaper workers used this type of civil disobedience in their struggle with the newspaper monopolies. There wasn't any outcry from the working class against destruction of newspapers then. The revolution will not come through polite struggle only. Shoot your television.
What would Seattle have been without the destruction of private property ? Why do you place a special, sacred value on the written word ?
(((((((
BRC contradicts itself. Above it says that Horowitz is "constitutionally entitled" to express his views; below it says that the First Amendment "does not justify racism." Which is it?
((((((((
CB: These two propositions do not contradict each other.
However, Horowitz's right to speak in a privately owned newspaper is not protected by the First Amendment. So, he is constitutionally entitled to express his views, but he is not constitutionally entitled to express his views in a privately owned newspaper.
Furthermore, his constitutional right to express his views does not justify racism. (((((((
The First Amendment doesn't "justify" anything save the right to speak without fear of state interference.
((((((((
CB: Yes, freedom of press and religion too.
((((((((
Thus, anyone and everyone is covered (except the standard exceptions, libel, slander, etc.).
((((((((
CB: What justifies there being exceptions for libel , slander, etc ? Why doesn't the First Amendment protect defamation ? How come racist speech is not defamation , and therefore an exception to First Amendment protection ?
(((((((
Racists and fascists have the right to speak their minds, as do radicals of the left.
((((((((
CB: Shouldn't this be "racists and fascists have the right to speak their minds AS DO LIBERALS " ? Liberals are closer to fascists than are radicals of the left .
(((((((((
Perhaps the BRC should focus more on the editorial make-up of the Brown paper and expose the lack of true democratic access to media outlets -- a lack of access that is not restricted solely to campus papers. And stop giving Horowitz so much attention. That is his game, and sadly, these students and their patrons are playing right along.
((((((((
CB: Don't see where the BRC is giving Horowitz so much attention. The statement is very brief. BRC is concentrating on and has written much more on the substance of support for reparations before Horowitz even came out with all this shit. The BRC is also focussed on Black students victimized by Horowitz.
Why is it that you want to ignore Horowitz ? The logic of the liberal doctrine of free speech in allowing fascistic racists to speak only makes sense if a swarm of rational critics counters the expression of his noxious doctrine, so it is encumbent upon you as an upholder of the rationale of that doctrine to exactly focus on countering the content of Horowitz statements.