Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!unix.cis.pitt.edu!rhg2
From: rhg2@unix.cis.pitt.edu (Rich  Graham)
Newsgroups: alt.individualism
Subject: Re: Kennedy wasn't the first.
Message-ID: <21741@unix.cis.pitt.edu>
Date: 19 Jan 90 19:02:11 GMT
Reply-To: rhg2@unix.cis.pitt.edu (Rich  Graham)
Organization: Univ. of Pittsburgh, Comp & Info Services
Lines: 47

(Phil Ronzone) writes:
>	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

This posting is based on the (incorrect) assumption that I would want
laws forcing people to treat each other in a way that I consider fair.
Not all that is legal is good or right, and not all that is wrong should
be illegal.

>	And philosophically, it is not only legal but DESIRABLE in the
>EXTREME to suppress illogical and incorrect ideas but NOT by force.  

Then what kinds of supression do you support?  Let's say I expressed
some philisophically illogical and incorrect ideas that were so
offensive as to earn me the hatred of every man, woman and child in
North America.  By your thinking, a perfectly reasonable reaction to
this would be for me to lose my job and get kicked out of the house I
rent.  You would respect my rights to my property (car, furniture,
clothes, a couple other toys).  This will do me no good, as nobody 
is about to sell me any food, or land to produce it.  You're right, this
would do an excellent job of discouraging me from expressing unpopular
ideas.

>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.  

I never said not to oppose ideas.  If you said that, and your boss said
"Rich, I heard what Phil said, and I'm firing him for it.", I actually
would ask him not to.  If your landlord promised to kick you out, I'd
discourage that, too.  I have faith in lot of other mechanisms to keep
you from torturing me, or convincing others to.

>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.

And I protmote social tolerance of people with ideas I consider
offensive for the same reason.
-- 
Richard H. Graham
University of Pittsburgh - CIS
rhg2@unix.cis.pitt.edu