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.