Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!clyde.concordia.ca!mcgill-vision!quiche!utility
From: utility@quiche.cs.mcgill.ca (Ronald BODKIN)
Newsgroups: alt.individualism
Subject: Re: Kennedy wasn't the first.
Message-ID: <2008@quiche.cs.mcgill.ca>
Date: 19 Jan 90 00:43:49 GMT
References: <89348.161937BROWN@NCSUVM.BITNET. <1372@becker.UUCP. <461@smcnet.UUCP. <51@zds-ux.UUCP. <467@smcnet.UUCP. <67@zds-ux.UU <2540@odin.SGI.COM. <90008.000413HERSCH@AUVM.BITNET. <1856@osc.COM> <21642@unix.cis.pitt.edu> <2903@odin.SGI.COM> <21696@unix.cis.pitt.
Reply-To: utility@quiche.cs.mcgill.ca (Ronald BODKIN)
Organization: SOCS, McGill University, Montreal, Canada
Lines: 41

In article <21696@unix.cis.pitt.edu> rhg2@unix.cis.pitt.edu (Rich  Graham) writes:
>VIOLATE IT IN SPIRIT.  If you persuade people to use their economic
>freedoms to enact EFFECTIVE censorship or persection, it shows that you
>DON'T believe in political toleration and the free exchange of ideas
>(talk about un-american activities).

>MY point exactly.  The Constitution isn't worth the paper it's written
>on if the participants follow it only to the letter while actually
>opposing it idealistically.   It makes no difference if I have a right
>to free speech when the general public is dedicated to supressing ideas
>they don't like.

	You miss the point badly.  An open mind is*NOT* a passive
mind.  Freedom of speech does *NOT* mean either of:
1) a guarantee to inflict your stupid (or otherwise) opinions on others
2) a requirement for people to ignore your statements in treating you
And neither of these is even part of the PRINCIPLE.  Last time I recalled,
alot of people defend extreme idiots who mouth B.S. like "There was
no holocaust" or "Socialism is a viable system for preserving individual
liberties" (not considered that extreme today -- but that's our society's
failing) or "all atheists should be sent to hell promptly (by burning)"
 are defended solely on the grounds that their reprehensibleideas are
indeed covered by freedom of speech.  Given the choice of a society with
censorship or one with ENFORCED SUPPORT of ANY idea someone mouths, I'll
pick the former! 
	In the end, there is nothing about free speech which has ANY
ramifications for people's reactions except that:
NO ONE should physically harm or in any way use physical coercion
(including theft, fraud, breach of contract, etc.) against someone who
has said anything at all (leaving aside questions of communications of
criminal intent), including the government.
	And philosophically, it is not only legal but DESIRABLE in the
EXTREME to suppress illogical and incorrect ideas but NOT by force.  I
can't believe ANYONE seriously thinks that EVERY idea that someone
may propound should be seriously heard.  What if I suggested "you should
be tortured" -- would you figure, I'd best not oppose this idea, or
else I'll be impeding free speech and circulation of ideas.  The
point is that we allow free speech because it is too dangerous to
ourselves to try and suppress speech NOT because its an unqualified
good to have EVERYTHING that can be stated, stated.
			Ron