RE: NO Neo-Nazis on Usenet!

[Alan Dove <ad52@columbia.edu>]

On Thu, 6 Mar 1997, MTSU Debate wrote:

> > the same as "silencing" the arguments.  A debater could still argue
> > whatever he wants to in front of, say, Doyle Srader, but if it's
> > repugnant, it won't win.  I don't agree with Doyle, but I don't think he's
> > exactly "censoring," either.
> 
> I just don't see the difference here, Alan. Having other places to spew
> repugnancy is simply not unique to debate and not a valid justification
> for censorship. Far-right racist groups like Aryan Nations, National

I didn't make myself clear, I guess.  I'm not saying the debaters in
Doyle's hypothetical round could deliver their message elsewhere; they
could deliver it right there.  They can spout whatever speech they like,
as far as I know.  For those who automatically reject such positions,
though, it won't win the ballot.  No restriction on speech, they just
won't persuade that judge to vote for that position - at least, that was
my understanding. If someone was actually advocating SILENCING the debater
while the argument is being made, well, that's clearly censorship, but I
don't recall such a claim being made.

          --Alan

__________________
Alan Dove
N3IMU
ad52@columbia.edu
http://128.59.173.136/Poliolab/Alan/Dove.html

---

References:

• RE: NO Neo-Nazis on Usenet!
• From: MTSU Debate <debate@frank.mtsu.edu>

---

• Prev by Date: RE: NO Neo-Nazis on Usenet!
• Next by Date: south central rep reporting
• Prev by thread: RE: NO Neo-Nazis on Usenet!
• Next by thread: NO Neo-Nazis on Usenet!
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread
  • Author

---

Archive created by Jonathan Stanton (jonathan@cs.jhu.edu)
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page