Hey -- for once, I may finally manage to it get it right!! (the (OT) thingy, that is).
John: A most thought-provoking post. Especially for me inasmuch as I've had increasing levels of frustration since September after being assigned to teach a course in 'The Computer Impact on Society' which I haven't taught in four years (much more fun to teach Rev! and, after the midst of 9-11.. not a good time to be teaching THAT, the impact course on society). But much of what you said in your post highlights frustrations I've felt in teaching this course. For example (and very much related to what you relayed in your post), I posited the following statement to my class and observed their reactions: "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" -- Voltaire's biographer, describing his view of freedom of speech. And, it wasn't really OT there, either, inasmuch as Sara Baase had used the quotation as a lead-in to discussion on "Offensive Speech and Censorship in Cyberspace" in a recent edition of her book, _A Gift of Fire: Social, legal, and ethical issues for computers and the Internet_. But, I remember the days (back when we all hiked 2 miles in the snow with no shoes to school) when people _actually believed this_. Now, it's a joke. People can and do laugh at the proposition. My US flag-waving students do. Baase especially notes that, in the US, the first amendment was indeed written _specifically_ to protect offensive speech. That, through disagreement, progress does indeed sometimes have its nascence. Another fellow, I forget his name now, but he wrote for Reason magazine and had an article on why, while legal, it's probably not a good idea to tell off-colour jokes in grandma's presence. Free speech: it's a big arena, philosophically. A good counter-argument. And I get your drift re: public versus private ownership of communications venues (something that, again, I sought, in vain, to explain to this semester's set of students). Rights entail responsibilities. Private property is private property. I screw up more than my fair share, to be certain. But I do strive to engage in criticism NOT of human beings but rather of ideas... And I doubtless come across as a pompous 'know-it-all' but I support the vigorous dialogue and argumentation that I believe advances society and humankind. If I am wrong, show me; don't call me names: that is the shield of those who cannot reason. I can and do change opinions on the virtue of rationality, not personality or the degredation thereof. Or, at least, I try... And while I do fail, I do try. Judy On Tue, 13 Dec 2005, John Vokey wrote: > All, > What a fascinating discussion, and a perfect, if ironic, example > of why the question being debated has been resolved (in favour of one > list) in practise. > > For the record, I agree with Dan (which happens less often than I > routinely think it should given I own most of his books, but I > digress). One feature of the discussion that has fascinated me most > (and should have led me to put [OT] in the Subject, but again, I > digress, and, at any rate, this subject line is by definition OT) is > the confusion between freedoms and rights. _______________________________________________ use-revolution mailing list [email protected] Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
