On Tue, May 28, 2002 at 10:02:52AM -0700, Miller, Jeffrey wrote: > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Erik Reuter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Monday, May 27, 2002 05:16 PM > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: Re: Sexually explicit materials, censorship, and strawmen. > > > > > > On Mon, May 27, 2002 at 05:09:15PM -0700, Nick Arnett wrote: > > > > > It's not censorship if *we* decide what is appropriate to this list. > > > > Of course it is censorship. It may be voted on or agreed upon > > censorship, but it is censorship nonetheless. If it is > > decided by any other way than unanimous consent, it is a > > censorship by the tyranny of the majority. It is certainly > > legal in this case, but that doesn't make it moral or desirable. > > It could also be concensus - lack of unanimity does not a tyranny make.
It may be a consensus or majority decision to censor, but it is still censorship. It is often called tyranny of the majority. I found a concise explanation here, which I have excerpted below. http://www.islandnet.com/~arton/poldemoc.html America is justly considered the world's major latter-day exponent of democracy; yet America's Founding Fathers recognized that the unrestricted exercise of majority rule could result in irresponsible government, or worse still, tyranny of the majority. The Bill of Rights defines certain specific individual rights and freedoms over which even democratically formulated and majority supported laws are not permitted to exercise any control. In so doing the Constitution and its Framers implicitly acknowledge a Higher Law endowing mankind with certain inalienable rights and liberties to which even democratic majorities must defer. Central to all of the Framers of the Bill of Rights was the idea that since Government, particularly the national government then newly created, is a powerful institution, its officials - all of them - must be compelled to exercise their powers within strictly defined boundaries. As James Madison explained to Congress in promoting his proposed Bill of Rights, "its limitations point sometimes against the abuse of the Executive power, sometimes against the Legislative, and in some cases against the community itself; or, in other words, against the majority in favor of the minority". -- "Erik Reuter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.erikreuter.com/
