[Vision2020] Disturbing trends

[Tim Lohrmann]

Ted,
   You're right.
   I used "censorship" and "violation of the First
amendment rights" interchangeably(sp?)when you could
argue they're not necessarily the same thing.
   You could call private action censorship I guess.
But it would not be a violation of free speech rights
protected by the First amendment. And so, in most
cases it would be perfectly legal. That's all. 
   I was just trying to make the distinction between
state action (required if First amendment concerns
enter in) and private action. I guess I just made a
bit of a mess out of it.
      
    TL
   
--- Ted Moffett <ted_moffett@hotmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Tim, Carl and others:
> 
> Tim, your acceptance of "censorship" when it is done
> by private institutions 
> or individuals is a bit too oversimplified and
> casual.  In fact you state:
> 
> >    Again, no governmental involvement--no
> censorship.
> 
> Why do you think only the government can engage in
> censorship?  If all the 
> private newspapers and televised media outlets in
> the US block info from 
> reaching the public, is this not a form of
> censorship?
> 
> Of course we have the legal right to boycott
> products or institutions or 
> ignore people we do not like or agree with.  But
> what the law allows, and 
> what is truly encouraging and respecting the
> democratic ideals of political 
> speech that is open, are two different things.
> 
> It may be legal for me to deny to release a movie,
> if I own a movie studio, 
> that features a movie star who expresses political
> views I find abhorrent.  
> But is this action consistent with the ideals of
> democracy?  I would say it 
> is not.  Especially if the movie does not promote
> the political views I 
> disagree with.  These types of actions are an
> attempt to personally damage 
> someone because you do not like what they believe in
> a situation where 
> politics is not involved.  Carl Westberg's baseball
> controversy is this type 
> of situation.
> 
> This is like firing your janitor if you own a
> business just because he voted 
> for George Bush and you happen to be a die-hard
> Nader fan.  I think most 
> people would agree there is something unfair and
> against the principles of 
> American democracy in this sort of action.
> 
> If most people in American start harassing and
> denying economic 
> opportunities to people who they happen to disagree
> with on political 
> issues, it will have and probably does now have a
> chilling effect on speech.
> 
> There will be examples where these ideals are
> difficult to live up to, like 
> the example given on vision2020 of the racist bumper
> stickers that a store 
> owner would keep off his shelves.  However, in this
> case the bumper stickers 
> and what they say are being targeted, not the person
> who made the bumper 
> stickers.  If the person who made the bumper
> stickers was fired from his 
> janitor job at the same store just because of his
> political views, which he 
> did not express on the job, this would be a
> different ethical situation than 
> keeping the racist bumper stickers off the shelves.
> 
> No ethical principle is perfect and covers all
> situations without examples 
> that present unsolvable contradictions between
> competing ethical rules.
> 
> Ted
> 
> 
>
_________________________________________________________________
> Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection
> with MSN 8. 
> http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
> 
>
_____________________________________________________
>  List services made available by First Step
> Internet, 
>  serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994. 
>  
>                http://www.fsr.net                   
>    
>           mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com
>
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ


__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo
http://search.yahoo.com