🚀 go-pugleaf

Randy Crawford (crawford@boole.mitre.org) wrote:

: In article <94Mar26.195502est.56889-2@undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca> rjwells@undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca (Justin Wells) writes:

: Wired did read the ban.  They reported the ban in all its glory.  They 
: probably expected their story to be banned in Canada along with the rest 
: of the free press.  It's you who should fear controversial statements.  
: After all, in discussing this issue, mustn't you admit that you have sought
: and read forbidden materials, thereby violating aty least the intent of the 
: law you hold so dear?  Great law, just as long as it doesn't apply to you.

WiReD did *NOT* read the ban.  I have an E-mail from the editor that
says so specifically.  They did not violate it intentionally and
would not have done so if they'd known the plea was covered by the
Ban.  It was just a mistake.  The E-mail goes on to say that if
they'd wanted to make a point of civil disobedience, it would have
been a big cover story going deep into the ugly, juicy details,
not 3 lousy words violating the least (and stupidest) part of the
Ban in a 400-word filler story.

: It is not the responsibility of ANY free publication to support a ban.
: MY GOD.  Supporting a ban is tantamount to a lie.  It is the willing
: participation in a coverup of the truth.  Any publication that willingly
: cooperates in a government-sponsored coverup cannot possibly call itself 
: free.  Any nation that makes such demands on its free press cannot either.
: Any PEOPLE of a state that do not foam at the mouth at the very THOUGHT
: of being silenced in this manner simply does not understand the notion of
: freedom.

Excuse me, I'm not saying that this is directly comparable, but quite
a lot of American media have suppressed information (quite widely)
for long periods of time and various junctures in your history.
During the War.  JFK's assignations.  Quite a lot of stuff during
the turbulent 60's.  And your gov'ts inability to muzzle the media
sure isn't for lack of trying, as witness the Pentagon Papers.  And
quite a lot of people have supported these actions and not supported
absolute freedom of the press.  Yet I wouldn't call America an un-free
country with an un-free press.  These things are shades of grey,
not so black and white.

If you think America has utter freedom of the press, try putting
a threat to your President's life on a piece of paper, make 400
photocopies, hand them out on the streetcorner, and then have
no repercussions because you're shielded by the 1st Amendment.
Good Luck.