I do not take issue with the fact that there will always be a lively debate,
indeed a struggle,  about **how** harm is defined and **who** should be defining
it.  At the same time, it must be recognized that some people are quite
defenseless for a variety of reasons (feeblemindedness or immaturity, for
examples) against blandishments that others would make upon them.

Are you suggesting that multinational chemical conglomerates should be allowed
to make any imaginable pitch to them to consume their wares (as but one of many
examples that could be provided) and odious ideologies?  The "assholes"  to whom
you refer in your message can not always be drowned out (Corporate media, for
example, typically reject what they consider to be advocacy advertizing -- that
is, pro bono advertising-- while not defining all of the self interested global
conglomerate advertising as advocacy advertising.).  In addition, before the
more and better free speech drowns out the assholes (in your world, which I
think is a bit more utopian than the one in which I live), much harm can and
will be inflicted upon many defenseless and some naive people.  Sure, maybe you
and I might (?) be worldly-wise and sophisticated enough to get taken in
(usually?), but then again we're not the ones in that case who need the
protection from the predatory vultures.  That, however, does not mean that many
other innocents don't need such protection.

Sure, there will sometimes, maybe even often, be abuses in seeking to restrict
predatory speech, but I don't think that this justifies abandoning the effort
and allowing the devil to take the hindmost.

Would you apply the same logic to sweatshops, child labour, minimum wage laws,
human rights law, civil rights law, etc.?  That is, while many people will be
abused if we don't protect them from abuse, we shouldn't seek to protect them
from abuse because we will be able to eliminate the abuses by explaining to
people what is occurring so that people will no longer support the abusers?
Yeah, right.  Have you checked out the logos on runners/sneakers or athletic
shoes lately?  Dan

Michael Pugliese wrote:

>    Under the influence of the simplistic view that, "Pornography is the
> Theory, Rape Is the Practice," (Andrea Dworkin, no? Or her comrade in
> censorship under well meaning motives dept., Catherine MacKinnon) sometime
> in the 90's Toronto tried to ban porn. The first target of the ordinance (a
> similiar was passed by the Minneapolis, MN. City Council, declared
> unconstitutional by the courts later) was a Lesbian book store.
>    Who decides what is offensive? Fascists will ban left and centrist and
> non-fascist conservatives. Liberals will ban...Stalinists will...well you
> get my point, I hope.
>   I tend towards the ACLU position on this stuff. The only solution to "bad"
> speech, is more and better speech. Drown out the assholes. Not only liberals
> and left socdems like me seem to feel this way. Check out the website of Ben
> Seattle
> who spent (way too many!) yrs. in a small Marxist-Leninist party in the U.S.
> The pro-Albania bunch. CPUSA (ML) ??? M-L P ??? Whatevah...
>
> Michael Pugliese
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dan Koenig <[log in to unmask]>
> To: [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Sunday, January 14, 2001 3:28 PM
> Subject: Re: [CHOMSKY] What limits should be placed on free speech?
>
> >Bodily harm only?  Does this allow the distribution of racist, fascist, or
> >pedophiliac comic books to primary grade school children?  Dan
> >
> >Lawrence Libby wrote:
> >
> >> As they teach you in 4th grade, free speech should be limited only by
> public
> >> safety.  But, of course, it gets more complicated than that in the real
> >> world.  Who gets to define "public safety"?  Does it apply only to bodily
> >> safety?  (Apparently not.)   If I were king of the world (or got to cast
> the
> >> deciding vote:) ) the line would be bodily harm only.