>Carrol Cox wrote:
>
>> 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.
Are you opposed to sabotage, property destruction, etc. in principle, whoever does them for whatever purposes?
Yoshie