Apparently regardless of content -- it's the beliefs of speaker that does it for Hook or Nathan, not what the speaker says -- something that goes way beyond the idea advocated by, say, Charles, that racist or fascist speech should be suppressible. So a case can be made that Charles is more of a civil libertarian than Nathan on First Amendment issues.
This position, by the way, creates a self-reference problem, because it sort of raises the question about how much someone who supports the Hook position is a supporter of free speech -- and if he is not one, his speech may be suppressed.
jks (still a First Amendment fundamentalist)
>
> From: "Nathan Newman"
>
>
>
> By the way, I have to admit I lost most of my
> sympathy for Stewart and her
> worries about "police state tactics" after her
> interview with MONTHLY REVIEW
> where she said:
>
http://articles.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1132/is_6_54/ai_94142091/pg_
> 2
>
> "I don't have any problem with Mao or Stalin or the
> Vietnamese leaders or
> certainly Fidel locking up people they see as
> dangerous. Because so often,
> dissidence has been used by the greater powers to
> undermine a people's
> revolution. The CIA pays a thousand people and cuts
> them loose, and they
> will undermine any revolution in the name of freedom
> of speech."
>
> It's hard to make an icon of free speech out of
> someone who supports gulags
> for other dissidents around the world.
>
> Nathan Newman
>
>
>
>
>
> ___________________________________
>
http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>
>
> ___________________________________
>
http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger. http://messenger.yahoo.com/