[77] in Discussion of MIT-community interests
Re: Objectivisim or Facism?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Ray Jones)
Fri Apr 20 02:54:46 2001
To: mit-talk@MIT.EDU
From: Ray Jones <rjones@pobox.com>
In-Reply-To: Zhelinrentice L Scott's message of "Fri, 20 Apr 2001 02:39:52 -0400"
Date: 20 Apr 2001 02:54:11 -0400
Message-ID: <ppwwv8gjc30.fsf@PIXIE.MIT.EDU>
Zhelinrentice L Scott <zlscott@MIT.EDU> writes:
> Wow. If what Aimee said is true, it is truly a sad day in America.
> This is very depressing that people can't even debate fairly.
Don't buy too quickly into one side of the story. Also, be wary of
handing one side of the argument the "free speech" trump card. In
particular, I point out this section of Aimee's message:
Aimee L Smith <alsmith@MIT.EDU> writes:
> I have to admit, I stopped trying to be respectful to the speaker
> after he claimed that capitalism is what ended slavery and that
> English colonization was a liberation for the Indian people... I
> guess I feel that the delicate balance between free-speech and the
> espousing of racial hatred against which could serve as an unfar
> barrier to inclusion to certain of the audience was pushed a bit too
> far.
As I read this, she wasn't trying to be respectful to teh speaker, and
wasn't being respected herself. Depending on what form that disrepect
took (of which we have differing accounts), it seems like blame could
be laid at both doors.
I can't parse the second sentence for meaning or intent very well, but
I'm worried by the terms "delicate balance" being applied to "free
speech". In general, unless we're talking about a clear and present
danger being engendered by a specific utterance, I prefer my balance
tilted towards the speech, in a manner anything but "delicate".
Ray Jones
