On Mon, May 27, 2002 at 05:36:38PM -0500, Reggie Bautista wrote: > Erik, I'm going to have to disagree with you on this one as I did back > on April 29 when I wrote:
I read it then, and it didn't seem worth a response. But since you keep repeating it, I will respond. > <begin long quote> Erik, you seem to want to allow cussing on-list > because you want all viewpoints to be allowed. Cussing isn't > necessary to achieve that, Of course it is. Try to rationalize all you want, it won't make it true. You are censoring a viewpoint. You are saying that your viewpoint is better than someone else's, and that you should have power over how someone else expresses themselves. > and allowing cussing actually *reduces* the number of viewpoints > available to list members. If a 13-year-old's dad monitors his/her > internet usage and tells him/her s/he can't stay on the list because > of the cussing, that removes that opinion (or potential opinion if a > lurker) from our list. Baloney. The Dad has reduced the number of viewpoints, nothing else has. Again, you can rationalize all you want, but it won't make it true. Censorship is censorship. > The same holds true of any person of any age who finds cussing > offensive. They and their ideas are going to find the nearest exit. That is their perogative. If people are not allowed to express themselves freely, you are TAKING AWAY A RIGHT TO FREE SPEECH. This is by no means equivalent to people freely choosing to not read something because it offends their delicate sensibilities. One is choice, the other is not. It is ludicrous to compare them. Why does your convenience overide the rights of others to express themselves? As I mentioned in a previous post, taking away someone's rights just for convenience is the arena of religious fundamentalists, thieves, bigots, authoritarian governments, and genocidal maniacs. > As I said earlier, restricting cussing does not restrict free speech. > It does not exclude viewpoints, it merely encourages that those > viewpoints be made in a polite manner. Bullshit it does not! Obviously, it excludes viewpoints that are not considered "polite". Polite is not universal, it is opinion. You are saying that if it does not agree with your superior opinion of what is polite, then a viewpoint may not be expressed. Who made you holier than thou? > allowing cussing *does* exclude those who only have internet access > (or have their primary internet access) from work. The ends do NOT justify the means when it comes to fundamental rights. Convenience and fundamental rights are not equivalent. Restricting fundamental rights for someone else's convenience is for dictators and despots, not tolerant democracies. -- "Erik Reuter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.erikreuter.com/
