Now it seems to me from the statement that Lou posted that the reason Lerner was "banned" or "not invited" was because he had criticized one of the groups. If that is true, then I dont see that squabbling over the definition of "banned" matters.
Instead, the question is how is it that anyone who criticizes any of the four groups is excluded from speaking. Isn't that the question here? Beyond the problem of excluding speakers, it also is an insidious form of censorship. It means that anyone who would like to speak at one of these events MUST never say anything publicly against one of these speakers. Sounds like "good ole" DEMOCRATIC CENTRALISM to me.
-Thomas
--- Michael Perelman <michael at ecst.csuchico.edu>
wrote:
> I oppose the war. Could I demand that I get to
> speak? Would I be banned
> if I did not get an opportunity? Or is Lerner so
> important that he should
> be granted a platform whereever he wants.
>
> I have also been banned from Nightline and Saturday
> Night Live.
> --
> Michael Perelman
> Economics Department
> California State University
> Chico, CA 95929
>
> Tel. 530-898-5321
> E-Mail michael at ecst.csuchico.edu
===== <<Be like me! The Primal Mother, eternally creative, eternally impelling into life,
eternally drawing satisfaction from the ceaseless flux of phenomena.>>
-Nietzsche, "The Birth of Tragedy"
__________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Shopping - Send Flowers for Valentine's Day http://shopping.yahoo.com