Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!wuarchive!usc!ucsd!ucbvax!mindcrf.UUCP!karish From: karish@mindcrf.UUCP (Chuck Karish) Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk Subject: Sarcasm? (was: Re: Musing on Constitutionality) Summary: USSR comparison OK Message-ID: <9009091604.AA23599@mindcrf.mindcraft.com> Date: 9 Sep 90 16:04:30 GMT References: <11503@medusa.cs.purdue.edu> <82778@aerospace.AERO.ORG> <11521@medusa.cs.purdue.edu> <1990Sep3.182712.2260@world.std.com> <11548@medusa.cs.purdue.edu> <11560@medusa.cs.purdue.edu> Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU Organization: Mindcraft, Inc. Lines: 29 In article <11560@medusa.cs.purdue.edu> spaf@cs.purdue.edu (Gene Spafford) writes: >In article bzs@world.std.com (Barry >Shein) tries to draw a comparison with Soviet publication policies >and concludes with: >>Food for thought? > >( Explanation for the sarcasm-impaired: > In general, just because it happens in the Soviet Union doesn't >automatically mean it is undesireable, as implied by Barry's >reference, even if it were a valid comparison in the current context; >cause and (implied) effect are much more complicated than such >statements suggests.) Barry referred to the systematic censorship of serious publications that are published surreptitiously, using photocopiers. Their publishers are attacked because they don't follow the party line, not because they're habitual libelers or frauds. Persecution of this sort is odious wherever it is practiced. I doubt that Barry chose the USSR as an example in order to provoke a knee-jerk anti-Red response; I doubt that he could do so with this audience. His comparison was a good one in the context of Gene's earlier comments to the effect that low-budget publications are less deserving of First Amendment protection. -- Chuck Karish karish@mindcraft.com Mindcraft, Inc. (415) 323-9000