[139] in Discussion of MIT-community interests
Re: Harvard Sleep-out, FTAA & the Tech
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Ray Jones)
Fri Apr 20 22:47:45 2001
To: Aimee L Smith <alsmith@MIT.EDU>
Cc: Ray Jones <rjones@pobox.com>, mit-talk@MIT.EDU
From: Ray Jones <rjones@pobox.com>
In-Reply-To: Aimee L Smith's message of "Fri, 20 Apr 2001 21:25:13 -0400"
Date: 20 Apr 2001 22:47:36 -0400
Message-ID: <ppwsnj3nf3r.fsf@PIXIE.MIT.EDU>
Aimee L Smith <alsmith@MIT.EDU> writes:
> > Whether it's angry protesters or the government doing the damage, the
> > censorship is the same. I find it especially ironic that groups that
> > hold more fringe or minority views are so willing to squelch speech,
> > considering that their own speech rights are much more likely to be
> > targeted by the government.
> >
>
> But you fail to comment on whether you agree with the censorship
> power of media outlets... whether you agree with the submitted letter's
> opinion, should it have been published? That is the question...
First of all, that's orthogonal to my statements about theft and
censorship not falling under the definition of "civil disobedience."
I want to be clear on that, since it was the gist of my message.
Second, the media doesn't exercise censorship by not publishing
something. Censorship is preventing something from being published,
not failing to act positively to publish it. Calling rejection of a
letter "censorship" runs the risk of diluting the term for a serious
and continuing problem. Also, it's important to remember that free
speech goes both ways. Newspapers can print something if they want
to, and likewise, not print something if they don't.
Finally, newspapers are arenas for competition between ideas. If your
ideas can't make it past the first hurdle (the editorial board) in a
particular paper, that's too bad. Maybe you should choose another
publication or method of getting your ideas out there. But calling it
censorship is incorrect. At the worst, it's biased journalism.
Ray Jones
