Charles Brown wrote:
>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 ?
Well, Chuck, if the students are indifferent to the opinion of those they ostensibly wish to persuade (in this case, the rather sticky -- for the white midde-class -- issue of reparations), then by all means, fire away. But since we are not in a revolutionary period, such actions are pointless at best, and self-defeating at worst.
> 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.
Different struggle, different era. And given the current media terrain, this didn't accomplish much, did it?
> The revolution will not come through polite struggle only. Shoot your
television.
See first point above.
> What would Seattle have been without the destruction of private property ?
To me, the success of Seattle lay in the political organizing. If you wish to cheer on adolescent rage and police-agent violence, feel free.
> Why do you place a special, sacred value on the written word ?
I thought all radicals did. Didn't Marx? Paine? Malcolm X?
>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 ?
If Horowitz specifically targeted people with specific slanders, that would be another matter. As it was, he dealt in gross generalities which do not, so far as I know, constitute libel. If it does, then perhaps the Brown students should try to take him and the paper to court.
>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.
And I dealt with that brief statement.
> 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.
One can attack racist doctrine without lending credence to a clown using said doctrine to get money and media attention. Horowitz isn't the only person attacking the call for reparations, but he wants you to see him that way, and it seems that you are only too willing to oblige him.
DP