> > The freedom of speech is central to liberalism because it protects
>> minority opinions from majority ones. In other words, it is rooted
>> in a fear of democracy & distrust of the masses.
>
>Jews in Nazi Germany had minority opinions. Did they fear and distrust the
>German masses? Did this make them anti-democratic elitists (or
>"cosmopolitians" as they were dubbed by the German state)?
Because *fascists* triumphed in Germany, do we now have to believe that, even if the masses made up their own minds & decide to ban or tightly regulate *fascist* opinions, doing so would be unjust?
>Yoshie wrote:
>
>> Which has more political freedom? France, I say. Which is more committed
>> to historical truth -- the French government or for-profit textbook
>> publishers, privately-owned newspapers & TV stations, thousands upon
>> thousands of parochial & provincial school boards, and so on in the
>> USA? The French government, I believe. Do you disagree?
>
>Frankly, I think there's more potential here for true freedom than in France
>(especially given its recent history). If you want to live in a country
>where you can be prosecuted and jailed for disagreeing with the state's
>concept of historical "truth," I'm sure there's a flight leaving Columbus
>tonight.
>
>> What if the majority of the people make up their own minds & decide
>> that fascist opinions should be either banned or tightly regulated,
>> as in the case of France? Why distrust the French masses?
>
>That's too easy. Put some spin on your softballs, Yoshie.
>
>> I try to pass flyers in opposition to the death penalty,
>> for instance. Inevitably, some of them say, "Get a job!"
>
>I think that's a fine suggestion -- unless you consider passing out fliers
>to be heavy-lifting.
In your opinion, those who disagree with you on "free speech" (or pass out flyers when they could be doing some "heavy-lifting" work instead) are not supposed to hold a college-teaching job and/or live in the USA. I thank you for your priceless honesty.
Yoshie