On 10/4/07, Venkat Mangudi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Why is "allowed" always associated with a government? Can it not be that > the people don't "allow" someone to write crap by telling him to stop > doing it? I say "allow" in the humblest form, if there is one, where > people tell a writer to cease and desist from publishing material that > is "irresponsible". > >
I accept the sense you use "allow"... and in this sense, you are quite right, of course. But how does anyone tell a writer to cease and desist beforehand?...when seen as objectionable, the material has already been published, and one can only say, "no more of the same"...and in a free society, that can't be enforced, either. Recently, on another email list that I belong to, one very vociferous person DID write crap. Several of us pressurized him, by various direct and indirect messages, to cease and desist, but the moderator of the egroup had to a. allow his opinion in the first place; b. let him have the opportunity to answer us; and c. allow him to give a final apology (well, that was a pretty qualified one!)...but he did so AFTER the crap email was sent out! If one tries to say, beforehand, "you can't write this, and this, and this," that is construed as inhibition of freedom. The crap email was posted in spite of general guidelines existing about what to post on that egroup! So that's why I feel that only bodies of authority (eg, the government) can "allow" or "disallow" something. Deepa. On 10/4/07, Venkat Mangudi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Why is "allowed" always associated with a government? Can it not be that > the people don't "allow" someone to write crap by telling him to stop > doing it? I say "allow" in the humblest form, if there is one, where > people tell a writer to cease and desist from publishing material that > is "irresponsible". > >
