Thomas writes:
> Keep in mind that Churchill came onto the radar screen
recently not so much for his political analysis, but for
insulting the dead. That is not worth going to bat for.
Why? Would the instance have been more worthy if he had insulted George Bush? Bill Clinton? SpongeBob SquarePants? What is worth going to bat for is the right of free speech.
By what objective scale do you measure what speech is worth going to bat for and which is not?
> Hope for a more deserving and attractive champion to
support on free speech.
The worthiness of the champion is irrelevant. The question is whether the cause of free speech is worth fighting for. The speaker of the speech makes no difference. If certain speech turns out to be false, then there are libel and slander laws to handle such situations. In fact, such laws would be redundant if we lived in a society were speech were restricted from the get-go.
> I don't understand why anyone would object to outing a
bogus claim of genocide.
But what if someone decided that the outing of a bogus claim of anything was not a form of speech worth fighting for?
> Think ahead!
It is odd that you should advocate forethought when your bizarre and selective approach to the freedom of speech indicates that thinkng ahead is something you yourself do not practice.
> Perhaps I'm too moderate for this list.
I know nothing about you, so to pass judgement on whether you are moderate or not is impossible (besides being pointless). But I can say that your approach is neither moderate nor immoderate, rather merely nonsensical.
Brian Dauth Queer Buddhist Resister
P.S. The homepage of Lamar University where Professor Brown works (I have warned LBOsters about "dot edu" thinking for a long time now) has at it bottom a link to Texas Homeland Security.
The horrorshow increases.