>>CB: Wow , Doug, what's so scary about it ?
>
>I guess my fetish is showing, but I'm kind of attached to written words
>and their free circulation. Call me a liberal, but I believe that even
>vile pigs like Horowitz should be free to say and write what they want.
>And saying there's no state involved, and therefore no issue of
>censorship, is a bit of a dodge; if it ever came down to who could summon
>the largest number of goons, we'd lose.
>
>Doug
well, i don't know about the Y&CC Comedy Act. I do know that CB advocates state censorship of hate speech and CC frequently expresses the view that talking about something makes it so, therefore it's best not to talk about it. (on a side note, what is absolutely hilarious is that i see that the Y&CC Comedy Act is now advocating a kind of Mackendrickian/Zizekian approach. I swear, I read CC and CB and think, have they turned into Ken's Pod People??!!! No way. it is simply NOT possible.)
nevertheless, I don't read Y&CC as saying that there is no censorship involved. what they've said is that it is inaccurate to *INVOKE* the first amendment against those who do something to make it difficult to read or hear these views. it has nothing to do with the first amendment, but much to do with the kind of censorship that goes on all the time. the state depends on these mechanisms of informal social control that take place in "civil society" -- so it's not the state, formally, but it is political since it is, for the most part, a major reason why we respond compliantly when we hear a police officer call to us.
I don't take it as far as the Y&CC Comedy Show, but I agree with CC in so far as NOT pointing out this issue yields far too much to one's opponent. for instance, what I've seen happen in discussions of political speech and protest is that appeals to the 1st are used rhetorically to silence those who exercise their rights to speech and assembly and do so vigorously (shouting down the speaker) or do things to make it difficult to read those words (the Brown action). so, were people to have shouted and made a ruckus at Horowitz's "talk" in Berserkley they would have had the charge "enemies of free speech" hurled at them and, by implication, they are, on this logic, "enemies of the bill of rights" and "enemies of freedom" -- that is, fascists. nice trick.
so, in these discussions, it is worth pointing out that the 1stA. doesn't apply to what happened at Brown. that doesn't mean that informal censorship isn't going on, but it does take away the moral high ground from your opponent who uses the BoC as that sacred document that you like to criticize so much Doug.
closer to home: if someone were to call you a censor and enemy of free speech because you have shut convos down and booted people (and threatened), they do so either by overtly or implicitly appealing to the 1st. that gives them the rhetorical upper hand in many ways, particularly in left circles where there is supposed to be some sort of antipathy to issues of ownership/power and an historical memory of all the ways in which the state _has_ been used to limit the rights of leftists.
I agree that it is an issue since it makes it appear as if people are trying to "protect" others from offensive speech.
I agree that it is an issue in so far as Horowitz's main tactic here is to be the VICTIM. aside from demonizing blacks, his goal is to play the culture wars to his advantage.
but i don't agree that we ought, now, to claim that the Brown students have made given Horowitz a "gift". ("Again, another gift handed him by the likes of you." DP). As Christine demonstrated, Horowitz takes his "gift" any way he can. Well behaved protestors who picked up behind themselves were denounced as some kind of mob out to kill him.
kelley