Anyone here read Stanley Fish, "There is no so such thing as Free
Speech." Think it's published by Duke Univ. Press where he teaches or Univ.
of Chicago Press. Don't know much about Fish except he's a colleage of
Frederic Jameson there at Duke. Not a marxist like Jameson, but has a
leftish rep, as far as I know.

Michael Pugliese

-----Original Message-----
From: Tony Abdo <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Sunday, January 14, 2001 9:29 AM
Subject: Re: [CHOMSKY] What limits should be placed on free speech?


'Free speech' dependent only on the current goodwill of the majority is
the freedom to say baa... baa... baa.      Free speech is dependent on
the right to be offensive, ethically and politically.

The truth be, free speech is not something a society either has, or
doesn't.       Rather, some societies have some free speech, and others
have more.

The right to be heard is a key component of free speech.     In this,
the US supports remarkably little of this freedom for the average
citizen.      Unless you are an advertiser.    Or a company paying for
one.     Then you get tooooooo much 'free speech'.

But then again, the US is a society where individuals (prisoners) are
not individuals, and corporations are.

Tony.
-------------------------------------------------
i can go for the definitions below ("public safety" or "safety from
bodily harm"), but what about "public morality"? isn't there room for
limiting free speech to prevent "pornography", i.e., speech that the
majority of citizens find offensive because of their ethical
preferences? i realize that this inclusion can be perverted, but what
definition cannot?

thanks for your responses.
norm