----- Original Message ----- From: "Michael Dawson" <MDawson at pdx.edu>
-Crap, Nathan, you asked Doug to muzzle Lance because he, according to you, -lied. You weren't just disagreeing or condemning his "lie." You were -asking Doug to shut him up because of it.
Actually, I wasn't asking Doug to "shut him up" since Doug never does that. I was responding to Doug criticizing John Lancy-- which is an exercise of Doug's free speech rights -- and I suggested he should criticize Lance as well for the false statements that had led to John's ire.
But frankly, even if Doug was censoring people, that's not a violation of free speech, since he's not the government. He can "edit" this list as much as any editor might want to on a letters to an editor page. Doug chooses very light editing which is all to the good, but no "freedom of speech" is involved in how heavy editing he does.
Nathan
> -----Original Message-----
> From: lbo-talk-bounces at lbo-talk.org
[mailto:lbo-talk-bounces at lbo-talk.org]
> On Behalf Of Nathan Newman
> Sent: Friday, November 12, 2004 1:40 PM
> To: lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org
> Subject: Re: [lbo-talk] Where we stand today
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Michael Dawson" <MDawson at pdx.edu>
>
>
> -I would shine the mirror right back on you, bud. The freedom of speech
> -includes the freedom to lie, unless the lie is material to a crime. And
> so
> -it should be.
>
> "freedom of speech" is a silly phrase to throw around in this context.
No
> one is suggesting that the government throw anyone in jail or censor
them.
> The issue is whether telling untruths is a legitimate form of debate, a
> very different issue.
>
> George W. Bush had the right to lie (or just stubbornly ignore the truth
> if
> he's stupid) about WMDs and 911. No one hear would applaud that kind of
> politics coming from the Right. Why should it be acceptable from the
> left?
>
> Nathan
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: lbo-talk-bounces at lbo-talk.org
> [mailto:lbo-talk-bounces at lbo-talk.org]
> > On Behalf Of Nathan Newman
> > Sent: Friday, November 12, 2004 12:52 PM
> > To: lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org
> > Subject: Re: [lbo-talk] Where we stand today
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Michael Dawson" <MDawson at pdx.edu>
> >
> >
> > -If you don't believe in free speech for your enemies, you don't
believe
> > in
> > -the freedom of speech.
> > -And it's legit to criticize SEIU, even though it's critical of the
> > AFLack.
> > -I know this jars your sensibilities, and it may indeed be misinformed
> and
> > -wrong, but Lacny's the problem in this one, not Lance.
> >
> > Michael, you are completely deaf or just so blindly ideological that
> it's
> > pretty useless to say anything.
> >
> > Of course it's okay to criticize anyone. It's not okay to make up lies
> as
> > part of the criticism.
> >
> > Those are two different things. The fact that you can't tell the
> > difference between them explains most of what's wrong with almost
> > everything you say. There are folks on this list like Yoshie who I
> > disagree with on most things, but they have the basic intelligence to
> > recognize the difference between opinion and fact. You don't have that
> > capability.
> >
> > Nathan Newman
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: lbo-talk-bounces at lbo-talk.org
> [mailto:lbo-talk-bounces at lbo-talk.org]
> > On Behalf Of Nathan Newman
> > Sent: Friday, November 12, 2004 9:24 AM
> > To: lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org
> > Subject: Re: [lbo-talk] Where we stand today
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Michael Dawson" <MDawson at pdx.edu>
> >
> >
> > -It's called free speech, Nate. And, anyway, it is certainly within
the
> > -bounds of reason to criticize the AFL-CIO for insufficient organizing.
> > -You might want to rethink your own particular theory of truth. If I
> > recall,
> > -you are the one who thinks everything's on the right path. Not quite,
> > eh?
> >
> > Michael-- the issue is not criticism of the AFL-CIO, a bizarre claim
> since
> > we are talking about SEIU's criticisms of the AFL-CIO. The issue is
> > factual inaccuracies about whether Local 1199 in NY is a separate local
> > from other locals with 1199 in their names.
> >
> > The idea that lies and falsehood is a form of free speech is just the
> Fox
> > News version of truth. Hey, huge percentages of the population think
> > Saddam Hussein was involved in planning 911. So if Fox repeats that
> idea
> > as fact, they're just engaging in free speech, which is fine and dandy?
> >
> > Unfortunately, there are far too many LBOers who think making up facts
> is
> > a
> > form of ideological argument, and they really don't seem to be able to
> > tell
> > the difference between stating an opinion and making things up.
> >
> > Nathan Newman
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: lbo-talk-bounces at lbo-talk.org
> [mailto:lbo-talk-bounces at lbo-talk.org]
> > On Behalf Of Nathan Newman
> > Sent: Friday, November 12, 2004 8:36 AM
> > To: lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org
> > Subject: Re: [lbo-talk] Where we stand today
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Doug Henwood" <dhenwood at panix.com>
> >
> >
> > John Lacny wrote:
> > >Christ, can you READ?
> >
> > -Why do you have to be so damned nasty? We know how you feel about
this.
> >
> > Doug, your worry about ettiquette is reasonable, but you should be more
> > bothered that folks like Lance are spouting completely untrue
statements
> > and then spouting opinions based on those fake facts. Do we really
have
> > to
> > speak nicely to the leftwing equivalent of FoxNews? Is everyone
> entitled
> > not just to respect for their own opinions but to their own false
facts?
> >
> > I think you should demand not just etiquette from folks but a
reasonable
> > basis of knowledge before people claim things are true that are just
> not.
> > Everyone screws up on a fact occasionally, but when the fact asserted--
> as
> > in Lance's contention that all the SEIU locals are a single centralized
> > local -- is the main point being made, and it's reasserted even after
> > being
> > corrected, there is some right to frustration.
> >
> > Repeating a lie over and over again does not deserve respect or even
> > politeness after a while.
> >
> > So if you are going to rap peoples knuckles for impoliteness, how about
> a
> > bit of discipline on those who spread clearly false information?
> >
> > Nathan Newman
> >
> > ___________________________________
> > http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
> >
> > ___________________________________
> > http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
> >
> >
> > ___________________________________
> > http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
> >
> > ___________________________________
> > http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
> >
> >
> > ___________________________________
> > http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>
>
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
___________________________________ http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk